ecp_mysql_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 correctly highlights the destructive and irreversible nature of the operation, which is critical. However, it does not mention other potential behaviors such as whether the database must exist, whether the operation is asynchronous, or any permission requirements. The two statements it makes are accurate and important, but coverage is thin.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the irreversibility warning follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 restore operation, the description covers the key warning (overwrite, irreversible) and the basic purpose. However, it does not mention the confirm parameter requirement (though visible in schema), nor does it explain how to obtain a snapshot_id or what happens if the target database does not exist. Given the operation's severity and the absence of annotations, a bit more context would be beneficial, but the core information is present.

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 compensate for parameter meaning. The description only hints at db_name and snapshot_id via the phrase 'MySQL database' and 'storage.bd snapshot', but it does not explicitly explain the parameters or the mandatory confirm flag. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond what the names already convey.

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 states a specific verb ('Restore'), a resource ('MySQL database'), a source ('storage.bd snapshot'), and the effect ('overwriting its current content'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling backup tool and from import operations, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage by describing the exact scenario (restore from a storage.bd snapshot) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like import_database. The intended use is clear from context, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions.

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