Restore a ribbon backup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing side effects: re-import, publish, reset local working copy, and async execution with waitSeconds. It does not cover permissions or error conditions, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. It avoids redundancy and clearly communicates the workflow and async caveat in a compact format.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose, workflow, side effects, and async follow-up. It could mention prerequisites or failure modes, but the core operational context is complete for an agent to invoke it 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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining waitSeconds semantics ('if it outlasts waitSeconds, finish with ribbon_publish_status') and implying backupId source via 'backup solution zip' plus the schema's description. The description enhances understanding of the async timeout behavior.

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+resource: 'Re-import a backup solution zip (restoring the entity's RibbonDiffXml to that point in time), publish, and reset the local working copy to match.' It clearly identifies this as 'the revert mechanism' and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ribbon_publish by focusing on backup 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 provides clear context that this is the revert mechanism and explicitly mentions the async behavior with a reference to ribbon_publish_status as a follow-up. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it to other restore/undo alternatives.

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