supervisor_restore_backup

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. While 'DANGEROUS' hints at destructiveness, it does not explain consequences (e.g., overwriting current data, potential downtime, permission requirements). Critical details are missing for a dangerous write operation.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a warning. It front-loads the core purpose ('Restore a full backup by slug') and immediately flags danger. 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?

Given the dangerous nature of the tool, the description is notably incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., looking up slug via list_backups), error states, or what the output schema contains. A more comprehensive description is warranted for such a high-risk operation.

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%. The description adds meaning for 'slug' (backup identifier) and 'confirm' (safety flag) but omits any explanation of 'password'. With three parameters, the lack of detail on one key parameter reduces value.

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 action (restore), the resource (full backup), and the identifier (slug). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_backup and delete_backup by specifying 'restore'. The added warning 'DANGEROUS' provides immediate context.

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 explicitly states that confirm=True is required, signaling that this tool should only be used with deliberate intent. It does not list alternative tools or circumstances to avoid, but the danger flag effectively discourages casual use.

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