radarr_restore_backup

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

The description states 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance,' which aligns with the annotation readOnlyHint=false but adds little beyond what is already disclosed. It does not mention potentially destructive effects (e.g., overwriting current configuration), whether a restart is required, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic write operation. The annotation destructiveHint=false is not contradicted, but the description does not enrich transparency.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose, and the second adds a warning. While the 'WRITE' statement is somewhat redundant given the annotations, the overall length is appropriate and there is no unnecessary fluff.

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?

For a significant operation like restoring a backup, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention how to identify the backup (the 'id' parameter), what happens to existing data, or any post-restore steps. Although an output schema exists, the description still needs to explain the tool's context and usage, which it largely omits.

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 defines a single required 'id' integer with 0% schema description coverage. The description provides no explanation of what 'id' represents (e.g., the backup ID from list_system_backup), how to obtain it, or any format constraints. With zero schema coverage and no compensating detail in the description, the parameter semantics are severely under-specified.

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's function: 'Restore Radarr from a backup.' It uses a specific verb ('Restore') and identifies the resource ('Radarr'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'radarr_restore_backup_upload', which also restores a backup but via upload, so the purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is weak.

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 does not mention that it requires a backup ID from 'radarr_list_system_backup' or indicate any prerequisites or context. There is no mention of when not to use it or that 'restore_backup_upload' handles uploaded files instead.

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