restore_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key safety trait: 'The current config is itself backed up first, so a restore can be undone,' and explains dry_run as a preview without saving. It does not cover failure/error cases or permissions, but the main behavioral risks are addressed.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, a short behavior paragraph, then clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds information, with no fluff or repetition.

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 three-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: default behavior, parameter meaning, dry-run capability, reversibility, and return-value shape. It is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: url_path defaults to the default dashboard, backup_id defaults to the newest backup, and dry_run previews without saving. This adds meaning well beyond the raw property names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Restore a dashboard from a backup (live).' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_dashboard_backups or set_dashboard_config by focusing on restoring a previously saved backup.

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 gives clear behavioral context: restores the most recent backup unless backup_id is supplied, and explicitly references list_dashboard_backups as the source for valid IDs. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use alternatives, but the restore-vs-edit distinction is strongly implied.

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