shadowgraph_restore

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

The annotations already flag destructive behavior, but the description adds meaningful detail: every record and journal entry is replaced, a strictly greater revision is installed, and a failure is rolled back. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone communicate.

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 dense sentences carry the core action, the sibling differentiation, the destructive consequences, and the rollback guarantee. There is no filler or repetition; every sentence contributes essential information.

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, single-parameter restore operation, the description covers what it does, when to use it, what it destroys, how it relates to backup/purge, and failure behavior. The output schema exists and annotations cover the remaining concerns, so nothing needed for safe invocation is missing.

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?

Although the schema already documents the source path thoroughly, the description adds the accepted backup formats ('JSON or SQLite') and the rest of the schema reinforces required backend compatibility. With only one required parameter and full schema coverage, the parameter meaning is exceptionally clear.

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: 'Replace the entire live store with the contents of a JSON or SQLite backup.' It also distinguishes itself from close siblings by noting that shadowgraph_purge removes one project and shadowgraph_backup creates the snapshot this tool reads.

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?

It explicitly states this is 'Recovery only, never a merge,' which tells an agent when to choose it and when not to. It also names the relevant alternatives and what they do, making the tool's role in the workflow clear.

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