sonarr_restore_backup

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds a 'WRITE' label and notes it modifies the Sonarr instance, which aligns with annotations. It does not disclose further behavioral details such as backup replacement or service interruption, but given annotations, the added context is modest.

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 extremely brief, with the purpose in the first sentence and a useful write-caution in the second. No superfluous 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but leaves a gap: it does not specify how to obtain the backup id or any consequences of restoring, which may be relevant for a restore operation.

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 schema has one integer 'id' with no description, and the tool description does not explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., backup ID). With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter semantics ambiguous.

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 action (Restore) and the resource (Sonarr from a backup), and the tool name aligns with a distinct operation among siblings (e.g., restore_backup_upload). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 (restore from an existing backup) but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus the sibling restore_backup_upload, nor provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The WRITE warning is a caution but not usage guidance.

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