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 discloses the destructive action (removing files the run added), the reversibility guarantee (live files are backed up first, so the restore itself can be restored), and conflict behavior (refuses unless force is true). It omits permissions/auth requirements and what happens on partial failure, but the safety profile is genuinely well covered.

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 tight sentences with no filler, led by the core purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds distinct value: scope of file changes, reversibility, and the force precondition.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers destruction, reversibility, and conflict handling adequately. Losing the point for the missing dependency on preview_restore (only discoverable via schema text) and any mention of permissions.

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 mechanical parameter docs are already handled (baseline 3). The description adds safe-use semantics for force beyond the schema's terse 'restore over files edited on the server,' by tying it to a user-confirmation precondition, which meaningfully qualifies how the parameter should be set.

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 ('Undo a deploy') and then spells out exactly what that means operationally: backed-up files return and files added by the run are removed. This clearly separates it from deploy and preview_deploy, though it never names preview_restore as the required predecessor even though the schema depends on it.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule for the force flag ('only pass force when the user has seen the conflicts and said to go ahead'), which is a real constraint. However, it offers no guidance on the overall workflow (e.g., that preview_restore must run first) or when to prefer it over pull/check_server_changes, leaving the tool-selection context implied.

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