ecp_mssql_restore_from_storage_bd

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is destructive: overwriting current content and irreversible. It could add more about permissions or impact on active connections, but the most important destructive trait is explicitly disclosed.

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 sentences with no filler. The main action and the critical irreversible consequence are front-loaded and clearly separated.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and the irreversibility warning. However, it leaves some operational context unstated, such as whether the database must exist, how to obtain a valid snapshot_id, and whether restore runs synchronously or asynchronously.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add semantic meaning. It does identify db_name as the MSSQL database and snapshot_id as the snapshot source, but it does not explain what values each parameter should take, how to obtain a snapshot_id, or what the confirm parameter requires beyond the schema's const:true.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Restore a MSSQL database from a storage.bd snapshot, overwriting its current content.' This clearly distinguishes it from backup tools, list-snapshot tools, and 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 description implies when to use it: to replace a database's current content from a snapshot. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to the backup/snapshot workflow, such as listing snapshots first or verifying the snapshot ID.

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