cursor_history_restore

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It starts with a warning icon and 'DESTRUCTIVE', explicitly states that it 'can overwrite Composer history', lists what it does not cover, and advises to back up first. This fully discloses the mutation risk, scope, and required safety measure. It goes beyond the minimal requirement and is exceptionally transparent for a 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 sentence with the most critical warning (DESTRUCTIVE) front-loaded and immediately visible. It conveys the operation, exclusions, and a safety directive in a compact form. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word 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?

Given that the schema covers both parameters fully and the description mentions the destructive nature, exclusions, and the need to back up, the description is complete for an agent to decide when and how to safely call the tool. There is no output schema, but that is not required for a destructive operation where the core concern is the side effects, which are clearly disclosed. The absence of return-value information is acceptable.

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 is 3. The tool description does not add extra meaning about the parameters themselves; it only provides operational context (destructive warning, exclusions). The schema already documents backupPath and force, including the server's lack of interactive confirmation. The description adds no parameter-specific value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Restore Composer databases from a backup archive', which identifies the verb, resource, and scope. It also explicitly lists what it does NOT restore (Store databases, Agent transcripts, ACP stores), which distinguishes it from other operations and siblings. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 gives an explicit warning about destructive behaviour and instructs to 'Back up current Composer data first', which is a clear prerequisite. It also states exclusions ('does not restore Store databases, Agent transcripts or ACP stores'), helping the agent avoid misusing it for those data types. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like cursor_history_backup, though the context and naming make the counterpart obvious. This is clear guidance with minor gap in explicit alternative naming.

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