bridge_restore

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: it never overwrites the live file and creates a new restored.<N>.toe sibling. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not mention failure behavior, whether the restored file is automatically opened, or what happens if the backup path is invalid.

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 concise and front-loaded with the most important behavior (never overwrites the live file). The parameter explanation is brief and useful. It could be slightly more structured, but it earns its place with no wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action and the parameter meaning. It is missing context about what happens after restoration, how the restored.<N> numbering works, and any prerequisites or error conditions. This is adequate but not complete.

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. It does explain that 'backup' is an absolute path to a backup .toe file, which adds some meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Backup' title. However, it does not specify accepted extensions, whether the file must exist, or any format constraints beyond being a .toe path.

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 backup') and resource ('into the show folder as a NEW restored.<N>.toe sibling'), and explicitly notes it never overwrites the live file. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling bridge tools like bridge_snapshot or bridge_save_increment.

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 context: restoring a backup into the show folder as a new sibling. It does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bridge_snapshot or bridge_save_increment, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the show folder being open or the backup path being valid.

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