Restore backed-up project bytes

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: preview is the default behavior, binary bytes are supported, and an existing destination is backed up before restoration, which is important for understanding the safety model.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action and default behavior are front-loaded, followed by the required credential-like inputs, making it easy to scan.

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, 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call behavior: default preview, required SHA-256 values, and backup-before-restore. It does not explain failure modes (e.g., SHA-256 mismatch) or the preview response shape, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description restates the backup SHA-256 requirement and the current-destination SHA-256 condition but adds no syntax, format, or interpretation details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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) and resource (file from this project backup store), and notes it handles binary GDF/SCF bytes. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling read/edit tools by focusing on backup restoration, but it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast with them.

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 covers operational context: preview by default, backup SHA-256 required, and current destination SHA-256 required if the file exists. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings like project_edit_file or project_read_file, leaving usage to inference.

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