rea_patch_text_restore

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

With no annotations, the description does flag the key destructive trait: it overwrites the current file, and `force` controls that overwrite. It is silent on what happens when force=false and the target exists (refuse? skip?), whether the backup is consumed after restore, and whether the backup must exist.

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, no waste, with the backup-suffix scoping stated before the overwrite condition. Well front-loaded for such a small tool.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description is the sole behavioral source — and it omits error/precondition behavior (missing backup, existing target without force) and whether the restore is reversible. Adequate for the happy path, thin for a file-mutating 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the params — and it largely does: `file_path` is the original file whose '.reapat_txt_bak' companion is read, and `force` overwrites the current file. Only the exact force=false behavior is left 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?

Names a specific verb+resource: restoring the original file from a '<file>.reapat_txt_bak' text backup. The backup-suffix convention separates it from the generic sibling rea_patch_restore, though the description never says so explicitly.

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?

States the mechanics but never when to use this instead of rea_patch_restore, rea_patch_restore, or rea_patch_text_apply. An agent must infer the recovery-after-text-apply workflow from the tool name and backup suffix alone.

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