wordpress_restore_backup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Restore' implies a destructive write operation, but the description doesn't warn about potential data loss, downtime, or permission requirements. It lacks critical context such as whether the restoration is reversible, what gets overwritten, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a high-impact tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool name, though its brevity contributes to underspecification rather than true conciseness. The structure is front-loaded but lacks necessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (a destructive restoration operation), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the restoration process, expected outcomes, error conditions, or dependencies. For a high-stakes tool among many siblings, this leaves critical gaps in understanding.

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 has 1 parameter (backupId) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds nothing about what backupId represents, its format, or how to obtain valid values (e.g., from 'wordpress_list_backups'). For a single undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent guessing.

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 'Restore WordPress from backup' states the verb ('Restore') and resource ('WordPress from backup'), but it's vague about scope and lacks sibling differentiation. It doesn't specify whether this restores files, database, or both, nor how it differs from other backup-related tools like 'wordpress_full_backup' or 'wordpress_list_backups'. This is a tautological restatement of the tool name rather than a clear, specific 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing backup), exclusions, or related tools like 'wordpress_list_backups' for selecting a backupId. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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