preview_restore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the operation is non-mutating, specifies the conflict condition ('live files edited after that run'), and discloses a required output artifact (planId) consumed by restore. It omits auth/permission needs and whether a planId expires, which keeps it short of 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste. The non-mutating guarantee is front-loaded right after the purpose, and the planId handoff closes the loop with restore.

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 output schema exists, so the description must convey return semantics; it names both the conflict information and the planId, which are the two things an agent needs. A brief note on the plan's shape (added/removed/conflicted file counts) or permission requirements would make it fully complete.

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 both 'site' and 'backup' are fully documented in the schema (including the newest-backup default and the list_sites cross-reference). The description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('show what restoring a backup would put back and remove'), and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling restore by declaring 'Changes nothing.' An agent can tell this is the dry-run counterpart to restore without opening either schema.

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?

'Changes nothing' plus 'Returns a planId that restore needs' effectively encodes the workflow: call this preview before invoking restore. It does not explicitly state exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., must a backup exist first), but the sibling routing is clear.

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