rea_patch_restore

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully disclose that force overwrites the current file, which is the key destructive nuance, but says nothing about what happens if no .reapat_bak exists, whether the current file is preserved first, or what the tool returns.

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 short sentences, both earning their place, with the restore action front-loaded before the force caveat. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a mutation tool with zero schema documentation.

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?

A destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation needs more: backup-absence behavior, file_path meaning, and routing against rea_patch_text_restore are all missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains force well (overwrites the current file), but file_path is ambiguous — it is unclear whether it names the original file whose backup is restored or the backup itself. Half the parameters are effectively undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (restore) and resource (the original file, sourced from the .reapat_bak backup), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling rea_patch_text_restore, leaving the agent to infer which restore applies to which artifact.

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?

No guidance on when to restore versus rea_patch_apply/verify, or versus the text_restore sibling. The implied usage (undo an applied patch) is only inferable from the name, not stated.

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