restore-database

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'restores from a backup' without mentioning that the operation is destructive (overwrites target), requires the database to be idle, or what happens to existing data. The 'replace' option in the schema is not referenced.

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 short sentence that adds limited value beyond the tool name. While concise, it does not use structure (e.g., paragraphs or lists) to convey additional context efficiently.

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?

Given the destructive nature of the tool and the presence of nested options, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain prerequisites, side effects, or return behavior, leaving agents without crucial context for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (backupPath, targetPath, options and its subfields). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'restores' and specifies the resource as a 'Firebird database from a backup', distinguishing it from sibling tools like backup-database. However, it does not highlight that the operation is destructive or may overwrite the target, which would further clarify purpose.

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 tool versus alternatives such as backup-database or validate-database. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., database must not be in use) or any context in which restore is appropriate.

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