restore_pawn_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies an overwrite of the current file with backup content but never warns that unsaved changes since the latest backup will be lost, nor does it state what happens if no backup exists. For a mutation operation, this is a significant disclosure gap.

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 sentences with zero filler. The main action is front-loaded ('Restore a .pwn/.inc file from its latest backup'), and the second sentence adds the key usage context. Both sentences earn their 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the agent can expect after the call: success outcomes, error conditions (e.g., backup not found), and whether a preceding list_backups is needed. None of this is present. The 'undo' framing helps, but the tool remains under-specified for correct invocation in a real workflow.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (path, backupName). The description mirrors the schema by mentioning 'latest backup' vs 'specific backup,' which maps cleanly to omitting or supplying backupName. It adds no detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Restore') and identifies the exact resource ('.pwn/.inc file' from backup). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling file tools by framing it as 'undo' when a write goes wrong, which sets it apart from write_pawn_script and read_pawn_script without ambiguity.

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 says when to use it: 'Use this as undo when a write goes wrong.' This gives clear context for invocation. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5, but the use case is unmistakable.

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