restore_backup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-step confirmation process (first call shows warning, second with confirm=true executes), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential destructive effects, permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens if the restored guest conflicts with existing resources.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a well-organized parameter breakdown. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. The two-step confirmation warning is front-loaded appropriately.

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 of a restoration operation with 6 parameters and no annotations, the description does well by explaining all parameters and the confirmation workflow. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to describe return values. However, for a potentially destructive operation, more behavioral context about risks would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 6 parameters in detail. It provides examples (e.g., volid format), default values, optional vs. required status, and practical guidance like using list_backups to find volid values. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Restore') and target resources ('a VM or container from a backup file'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_backup, rollback_snapshot, or clone_guest. It precisely defines the operation without being tautological.

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 provides clear context by referencing list_backups to find available backups and explaining when to use confirm. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like rollback_snapshot for snapshot-based restoration.

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