pressable_restore_site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not disclose that restoring is a destructive operation that likely overwrites current site content, nor does it mention permissions, reversibility, or response behavior. The description is too minimal to warn the agent of potential side effects.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It earns its place but offers minimal information. It is appropriately short, though not as structured or informative as could be expected for a tool with multiple parameters.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must compensate. A one-sentence description does not explain the underlying backup model, what database_id and filesystem_id refer to, or any side effects or return values. This is insufficient for a restore operation that could logically require coordination of multiple backup components.

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 50% (only id and restore_on_site_id have descriptions). The description itself adds no parameter information, so it does not compensate for the undocumented database_id and filesystem_id parameters. This leaves ambiguity about which backup components are being restored and how they relate.

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 the action (restore) and the resource (a site from a backup), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like pressable_get_backup_download_url or pressable_list_backups, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the action itself, which does not meet the bar for clear context or alternative selection.

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