Restore a system or VM from a Timeshift, Borg, or VM snapshot backup. Specify the backup type and identifier; use dry-run to preview changes before applying this destructive operation.
Restaure un backup (ATTENTION: opération destructive!) ⚠️ ATTENTION: Opération potentiellement destructive!
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| force | No | ||
| target | No | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| partial | No | ||
| identifier | Yes | ||
| skip_pre_snapshot | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description repeats the destructive nature already declared by destructiveHint=true, but adds no extra behavioral context such as what gets overwritten, whether confirmation is required, or what safeguards like dry_run or force do. There is no contradiction with annotations, so the annotation carries most of the burden.
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 text is short and front-loaded with the core action, but the destructive warning is repeated twice ('ATTENTION: opération destructive!' and 'ATTENTION: Opération potentiellement destructive!'), making part of the description redundant.
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 destructive tool with seven parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, a one-sentence warning is insufficient. The description does not explain how restoration works, what the parameters control, or what the expected outcome is, leaving major gaps for the agent.
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%, and the description mentions none of the seven parameters: type, identifier, force, target, dry_run, partial, or skip_pre_snapshot. An agent gets no help understanding what to pass or why, especially since the schema itself has no parameter descriptions.
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 'Restaure un backup' (restore a backup), which clearly identifies the action and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like backup_create, backup_list, backup_verify, and backup_clean by the verb 'restore', though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.
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 use this tool versus alternatives such as backup_verify or backup_list, nor any mention of prerequisites like locating a backup identifier first. The destructive warning is a caution, not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.