restore_scene_backup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states that the tool restores a backup but does not mention whether it overwrites the current scene without creating a new backup, if it requires editor to be closed, or what auth/permissions are needed. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance. No fluff or redundant information. Front-loaded with context.

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?

For a simple restore tool, it covers the core workflow: it specifies the two required parameters and the optional backupPath. It assumes knowledge of backup_scene, which is reasonable given sibling tools. Missing details on return values or error states, but output schema is absent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% so each parameter is described. The description adds value by explaining that backupPath is optional and defaults to the most recent backup, and clarifies that scenePath is the destination. This exceeds schema baseline.

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?

The description clearly states the tool restores a .tscn scene from a backup and uses the verb 'restore' with explicit resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'backup_scene' (creates backup) and 'list_scene_backups' (lists backups) by positioning itself as the rollback counterpart.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use it (rollback after a scene mutation went wrong) and how to use it (provide backupPath from backup_scene or leave empty for most recent). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the reference to backup_scene.

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