restore_backup

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the current state is snapshotted before the restore, which materially changes the risk calculus for the agent. It still doesn't say whether that pre-backup is retrievable or how errors surface.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the safety behavior front-loaded alongside the core action. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the mutation semantics, so the description needn't explain return values. The one remaining hole is the undocumented profile_type enum and the meaning of 'name', which an agent must guess at before calling.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate. It does clarify backup_file's provenance (list_backups output), but 'name' is only implied to be the preset and the profile_type enum (process/filament/machine) is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (restore) and resource (a preset from a backup file), and explicitly ties the backup_file input to list_backups, which distinguishes it from sibling reads. It stops short of differentiating from other mutating siblings like set_profile_parameter, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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 a clear ordering prerequisite: the backup file name must come from list_backups. That tells the agent when this tool is applicable, but it offers no explicit when-not guidance or note about what happens to the profile being restored over.

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