qui_execute_backup_restore

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already flags this as destructive, and the description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, prerequisites, or auth requirements. It merely restates the endpoint and parameter passing, missing an opportunity to disclose that the restore likely overwrites instance data.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the key information (the exact endpoint) and then explains the argument scheme without any redundant wording.

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 simple API wrapper, the description provides enough to construct a request, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, for a destructive restore operation with an otherwise empty input schema, it would benefit from explaining when to use it, what the restore entails, and any preconditions.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description's instruction to pass path variables directly, query values under arguments.params, and a JSON body under arguments.body is crucial. It gives the overall layout and implies the path variables from the URI template, though it does not enumerate required fields or validate the expected body shape.

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 identifies the precise REST endpoint (POST /instances/{instanceID}/backups/runs/{runID}/restore), making the operation clear and distinct from sibling tools like preview_backup_restore. However, it does not explicitly state in plain language that this restores a backup to an instance, relying on the endpoint path and tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as preview_backup_restore or trigger_backup. The only usage-related content is the argument-passing convention, which pertains to parameter semantics rather than tool selection.

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