backup_restore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does it well: it states that live app data is overwritten, warns that the operation is destructive, and explains that bind mounts from archives are always refused with a clear reason. This goes well beyond a generic restore description.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the core operation, warn about destructive effects, and state the bind-mount constraint with rationale. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 restore tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the key cautions and constraints an agent needs to call it safely. It could more explicitly state how the optional service parameter affects restore scope or what happens on failure, but overall it is sufficiently 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?

All three parameters are already described in the schema, so the schema coverage baseline of 3 applies. The description adds minimal per-parameter meaning beyond identifying the archive as the restore source; server and service semantics are not elaborated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: restore Docker volumes from a backup archive, and explicitly calls out the overwrite behavior. This clearly differentiates it from sibling backup_create/backup_drill/backup_list tools, which concern creation, testing, or listing rather than restoration.

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 communicates that destructive action requires confirmation, which is important usage guidance, but it never names alternatives or states when to use this tool versus backup_create/backup_drill. The restore context is implied rather than explicit.

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