nexterm_restore_backup

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

The description discloses a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait that the annotations do not cover: the operation initiates a server restart. That is valuable context for a destructive, non-idempotent call. It stops short of detailing what state gets overwritten or how long the restart takes, so it is strong but not complete.

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 with the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is slightly awkwardly attributed ('Nexterm documents that...') but still earns its place by conveying the restart consequence.

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 mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, yet the description omits where the inputs come from, what existing data is replaced, and the interruption an agent should expect. The restart note is helpful but the definition is not sufficient for an agent to invoke this safely.

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 carries the full burden and it supplies nothing about provider_id or backup_name. It never says where to obtain valid values (e.g. from nexterm_list_provider_backups) or what the parameters identify. The names are self-evident but that is schema-provided, not description-added.

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 and resource ('Restore a backup'), which cleanly separates it from the surrounding backup siblings such as nexterm_create_backup, nexterm_list_backup_files and nexterm_delete_backup_file. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer, but the action is 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?

There is no guidance on when to restore versus create a backup, no prerequisites (e.g. provider must exist, backup must be present), and no warnings about downtime or over-writing current state. Usage is only inferred from the verb.

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