ledfx_restore_backup

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions selective restore but does not explain whether existing configurations are overwritten, merged, or preserved by default. The 'clear_existing' parameter hints at destructive behavior, but the description fails to clarify the default behavior or side effects.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and selectively adds key details about selective restoration.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain the backup object structure, conflict resolution, failure modes, or what the tool returns. Critical context is 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats some parameter semantics ('selectively restore virtuals, scenes, and/or playlists') but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: restoring LedFX configuration from a backup JSON. It specifies selective restoration of virtuals, scenes, and/or playlists, distinguishing it from similar tools like ledfx_create_backup or ledfx_validate_backup.

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 implies usage after a backup is created, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ledfx_validate_backup or ledfx_import_config. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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