ecp_postgres_restore_from_storage_bd

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the operation overwrites current content and is irreversible, which is the critical behavioral fact. It does not mention prerequisites, auth needs, or job completion, but the main destructive side effect is clearly 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 short and front-loaded, with the core action first and the destructive consequence immediately after. The only minor issue is the inconsistent spelling 'storage.bd' versus the sibling naming convention 'storage_bd'.

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 operation with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential outcome and risk. It misses guidance on how to obtain a valid snapshot_id, what confirmation behavior is expected, and what observable result indicates success, but it does not mislead.

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%, and the description does not map its behavior to the three parameters. db_name, snapshot_id, and confirm are left inferable only by name; the description does not explain that confirm is a mandatory safety guard or how snapshot_id relates to stored backup snapshots.

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 names the verb ('Restore'), the resource ('a Postgres database'), and the source ('a storage.bd snapshot'), while explicitly noting the destructive overwrite. This distinguishes it from MySQL/MongoDB/MSSQL restore siblings and from backup tools.

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 use when one wants to restore a database from a snapshot, but it does not state when to use it versus alternatives, what prerequisites are needed, or that snapshot_id likely comes from a snapshot-listing tool such as ecp_backup_list_snapshots. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance beyond the tool name.

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