ise_openapi_backup_restore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does flag '[DESTRUCTIVE]' in the description and the confirm parameter documents that the server requires destructive tools enabled (CISCO_ISE_MCP_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=1). However, it doesn't describe reverting effects, that a restore may overwrite existing config, or the potential for service disruption during restore.

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 a single concise sentence with a useful follow-up pointer to the Task Service status API. It's front-loaded with the [DESTRUCTIVE] warning tag. It's efficient with no wasted words, though it leans on tags for structure rather than prose.

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?

This is a destructive, state-changing operation with no output schema and no annotations. The format is a simple task-based workflow (submit backup name, get task ID, poll task). While the description explains the basic flow and points to task status checking, it lacks details about what the restore modifies, whether it's reversible, potential downtime, or the structure of the required 'data' body. For a destructive tool, more behavioral context would be warranted.

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 the schema documents all three parameters. The description adds some meaning by clarifying the restore requires a backup file name, repo, and encryption key, but the 'data' nested object's exact structure/schema is not explained in the description. The deployment parameter is well-explained in the schema itself. Description adds marginal value over the schema.

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 verb+resource: 'Restore a config DB backup by giving the name of the backup file, repository name and encryption key.' It specifies the input requirements and mentions the returned task ID. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like ise_openapi_backup_create or ise_openapi_backup_cancel, but the 'restore' action is inherently distinct from backup creation/cancellation within the backup-restore family.

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 clear context on how to use the tool: name the backup file, repository, and encryption key, then use the Task Service status API to track progress. It points to a specific related tool (Task Service). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this vs alternatives or mention prerequisites like backup existence.

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