Preview or restore a backup

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: preview mode does not change files, confirmed restore backs up current versions first, and never deletes files. This covers safety and side-effect profile well, though some operational details (error handling, permissions) are omitted.

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?

Two sentences deliver all essential information: purpose, optionality, and behavioral impact of confirm. No redundancy or filler, perfectly front-loaded.

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 4 params with full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers key aspects (preview vs write, safety guarantees). Could mention return value or prerequisite backupId, but remains sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking 'files' to 'relative file paths' and implying confirm's role, but does not significantly extend the schema's explanations.

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 tool is for previewing and restoring from an ftc-toolchain backup with optional file selection. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_backups by focusing on restoration actions.

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 implies usage when restoration is needed (preview or confirmed) but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling differentiation beyond the tool's own purpose.

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