arango_restore_graph

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It mentions validation and conflict resolution but does not disclose that this is a restore operation from a backup, whether it is destructive (overwrites existing graph), or what permissions are needed. The behavior of conflict resolution (skip/overwrite/error) is hinted but not fully explained.

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?

The description is a single sentence, concise and to the point. However, it is vague and could be improved by specifying the source (backup directory) and what 'import' means in this context.

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?

No output schema is present, so the description should explain return values or success/failure indicators. It does not. The description also fails to mention that the tool restores from a backup, which is critical context. Given the complexity (5 params, restore operation), the description is insufficient.

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% and each parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description adds only a high-level summary ('validation and conflict resolution') which does not provide new meaning beyond the structure.

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 clearly states it imports graph data with validation and conflict resolution. However, it does not explicitly mention that it restores from a backup, which is the core action. This could cause confusion with importing data from other sources, especially given siblings like arango_create_graph.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as arango_create_graph, arango_backup_graph, or arango_validate_graph_integrity. There are no prerequisites mentioned, e.g., that a backup must exist at inputDir.

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