Restore files of an earlier session

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a risky write. The description adds useful scope context ('files only', restoring from backups of an earlier session), but does not say whether current files are overwritten or whether the operation is reversible.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the verb and scope front-loaded; the terse 'Files only' clause earns its place by narrowing scope. Nothing is bloated, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the destructive annotation covers risk. Still missing for a destructive restore: what happens to existing files, prerequisites, and how this relates to cm_revert_all.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains it (session id as shown by cm_changelog). 'From the backups of an earlier session' adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (restore), resource (project files) and source (backups of an earlier session), and 'Files only' scopes what is restored. It does not distinguish itself from the similar-sounding sibling cm_revert_all, which is the main gap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Once again, no guidance on when and why to use cm_restore versus cm_revert_all or any other restore-like tool is provided. The 'an earlier session' phrasing combined with the schema pointer to cm_changelog weakly implies how to obtain the required session id, but there are no explicit conditions or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.