wordpress_restore_backup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Restore' implies a write/destructive operation, but the description does not disclose that restoring will overwrite the current site or data, may be irreversible, might cause downtime, or could require additional permissions. There is no mention of the restoration process, risks, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a potentially destructive tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff, so it is concise. However, it suffers from under-specification: it is too terse to convey important operational details. The phrasing 'Restore WordPress from backup' is more descriptive than mere 'Process' but still lacks substance. Given the tradeoff between brevity and completeness, a score of 3 reflects that it is neatly phrased but not sufficiently informative.

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 is a restore operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a single undisclosed parameter. The description provides no information about return values, errors, prerequisites, confirmation required, or safe usage. In the context of the broader backup tool sibling suite (e.g., list_backups, full_backup), this description is far too sparse. For such a critical and potentially destructive operation, the description is radically incomplete.

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 contains one required parameter, backupId, with no schema description (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what backupId refers to, how to obtain it, or its format. The description adds zero value beyond the schema, leaving the user to guess. This is completely inadequate for a parameter on which the operation depends.

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' clearly states the action (restore) and the resource (WordPress from a backup). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly using 'restore', which is unique among the provided tools. However, it lacks specificity about the scope (full site vs. partial) and does not explicitly contrast with other backup-related tools, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 about when to use this tool vs. alternatives or what prerequisites are needed. The description simply states the action without context about scenarios (e.g., after a failed migration, to revert changes). It does not mention that a backup must first exist or that the user should verify the backup ID via list_backups. With no exclusions or alternative recommendations, this is below the minimum viable threshold.

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