restore_from_backup

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'restore from backup' with no mention of the operation's side effects (e.g., overwriting existing resources, needing cluster permissions, whether it is destructive) or any other traits. This is effectively no disclosure.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a clear Args list. Every line provides useful information without redundancy, and the front-loaded purpose makes the tool's intent immediately clear.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description only covers the purpose and parameter meanings. It omits behavioral details like what happens during restore, whether it replaces existing resources, what errors might occur, and what the success/result indication is. Given the complexity of a restore operation, this is incomplete.

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% because the schema properties have no descriptions. The description compensates with an Args block that explains each parameter: backup_file path, optional target_namespace, optional target_cluster, and kubeconfig_path with fallback to default cluster. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type/default info, though it could be more detailed about expected value formats.

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 states 'Restore resources from backup' with a clear verb-object structure. It is distinct from the backup creation tools in the sibling list, though it could be more specific about what types of resources or what form the backup takes.

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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The existence of backup_namespace and backup_resource implies restore is the counterpart, but the description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when an alternative like backup_resource or list_backups might be more appropriate.

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