Restore a backup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely important behavioral trait — that 'truncate wipes existing files first' — which signals destructiveness. However, it never says that a plain restore also overwrites existing server files, nor does it mention required permissions, whether the server is stopped/restarted, or whether the action is recoverable.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the key destructive caveat. No wasted words, though the lowercase fragment 'truncate wipes...' reads as a note rather than structured guidance.

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 mutation with 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 43% undocumented parameter coverage, the description is materially incomplete. It omits overwrite semantics for non-truncate restores, prerequisites, and any post-restore state information the agent would need to call this safely.

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 57%, so several parameters (backup, server, truncate) are undocumented in the schema. The description explains the effect of `truncate` behaviorally ('wipes existing files first'), which is useful, but leaves `backup` and `server` (e.g., identifier format) unexplained. Baseline 3 is appropriate for the partial coverage.

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 and resource ('Restore a backup to the server') and is clearly distinct from siblings like backup_create, backup_list, and backup_download_url. It doesn't explicitly call out those siblings, but the operation 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no preconditions (e.g., backup must exist, server state, whether the server should be stopped), and no warning that restore overwrites live server files. The agent is left to infer everything about appropriateness.

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