panelica_backups_post_v1_backups_filename_restore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds 'Mutating: changes server state' which is consistent with the annotations and adds the required scope (backups:restore) as auth context. However, it doesn't disclose what a restore actually does to current data — whether it overwrites existing files, causes service disruption, or is reversible — which matters for a restore operation.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, followed by HTTP method, category, scopes, and mutation flag. Each line carries distinct information with minimal waste. Slightly terse, but every element earns its place.

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 state-changing restore operation with an unconstrained body parameter and no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: what payload to send in the body, what the response looks like, and what consequences a restore has on the current environment. An agent cannot fully determine correct invocation from this definition alone.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics — notably, the 'body' parameter is an open object (additionalProperties: true, schema not statically declared) and the description provides no hint about what the body should contain, leaving the agent dependent on external API docs.

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 'Restore backup' — a specific verb (restore) on a specific resource (backup identified by filename), reinforced by the HTTP endpoint POST /v1/backups/:filename/restore. This distinguishes it from the backup list/get/delete siblings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similar snapshots_post_v1_snapshots_id_restore sibling.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description gives metadata (Category: Backups, Required scopes) but never states under what conditions an agent should choose this over alternatives, nor what prerequisites exist (e.g., the backup filename must already exist). No exclusions or alternative routing is mentioned.

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