cursor_history_restore

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the destructive behavior: it uses '⚠️ DESTRUCTIVE', states 'OVERWRITES your current chat history', and recommends creating a backup. This is transparent and goes beyond minimal expectations.

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 one short, highly efficient sentence with a warning symbol front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is clear with no wasted text.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values, but the restore operation's outcome is typically success/failure. It covers the key behavioral aspects (destructiveness, parameter usage, backup recommendation). Minor gaps exist, like what happens on invalid backup file, but overall it is adequate.

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% and describes both parameters (backupPath and force) adequately. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

Description clearly states it restores Cursor AI chat history from a backup file, with a specific verb (restore) and resource (chat history). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cursor_history_backup (which creates backups) and cursor_history_export (exports to other formats).

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 explicitly warns about the destructive nature and recommends creating a backup first, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives beyond the implicit sibling context.

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