qui_preview_backup_restore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and safety. It only states that it calls a POST endpoint, which implies mutation, but 'preview' suggests a non-destructive operation. No information about permissions, reversibility, or whether the preview affects system state is provided.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the endpoint and immediately reveals the parameter passing convention. No fluff or repetition; every word adds useful information for the caller.

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?

The description covers the request construction pattern but omits any explanation of the output or the purpose of previewing a restore. Even with an output schema available, the agent lacks context about what a 'preview' returns or what decisions it should inform (e.g., reviewing changes before executing). This is a minimal but functional description for a generic endpoint wrapper.

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?

The input schema is a generic 'arguments' object with zero description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the structure: path variables directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and JSON body in arguments.body. It does not list the specific path variables (instanceID, runID) or body fields, but it gives essential framing for constructing a valid request.

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 explicitly names the endpoint and HTTP method (POST /instances/{instanceID}/backups/runs/{runID}/restore/preview), which clearly identifies the action as previewing a backup restore. While it doesn't define 'preview' in functional terms, the resource and operation are unambiguous and distinguish this from sibling tools like qui_execute_backup_restore.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is a dry-run or pre-execution check, nor does it contrast with qui_execute_backup_restore or qui_list_backup_runs. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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