ecp_mongo_restore_from_storage_bd

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

With no annotations present, the description alone discloses that the operation is destructive and irreversible by saying it 'overwrites its current content' and is 'irreversible.' This is strong behavioral transparency for the most critical risk, though it omits other context such as permissions or validation behavior.

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?

The description is two short, front-loaded sentences. Every phrase adds value: the action comes first, then the overwrite consequence, then the irreversible warning. There is no filler.

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?

The description covers the core action and risk, but for a destructive call with no output schema and no annotations, an agent could use more context: how to obtain valid snapshot IDs, whether the database must already exist, and that confirm must be true. Sibling tools like ecp_backup_list_snapshots would have been worth referencing.

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?

The description adds semantic meaning to db_name and snapshot_id by referring to the MongoDB database and storage.bd snapshot, and 'irreversible' explains the intent behind the confirm flag. However, it does not explicitly map these roles to the schema parameters, and with 0% schema description coverage, the agent still has to infer some parameter relationships.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Restore' and names the exact resource: a MongoDB database from a storage.bd snapshot. It also mentions the overwrite effect, which clearly distinguishes this restore operation from backup tools like ecp_mongo_backup_to_storage_bd and from restore tools for other database engines.

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?

The use case is implied: restore a MongoDB database from an existing storage.bd snapshot. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternate workflows, mention the backup-list snapshot tool, or describe prerequisites for the snapshot ID.

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