Restore Backup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies an overwrite of the current codebase and configuration but never states that existing state is destroyed, whether the operation is reversible, or whether confirmation is required. The only behavioral disclosure is the restart_self follow-up.

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?

Two short sentences, action first, follow-up step second, with zero wasted wording. Appropriately front-loaded for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single-parameter surface is small. Still, for a destructive mutation with no annotations, the omission of overwrite/irreversibility consequences and backup_id provenance leaves a meaningful gap.

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 single parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It restates 'backup_id' without explaining its format or where to obtain a valid value (presumably list_backups), adding no meaning beyond the property name.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Restore codebase and configuration') plus the key input scope ('from a given backup_id'), which is enough to tell it apart from backup_self and list_backups contextually. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

It provides one concrete workflow instruction — 'Call restart_self afterward' — which is genuinely useful sequencing guidance. However, it never says when restoration is appropriate versus creating a new backup, or what prerequisite state (e.g. a valid backup_id from list_backups) is needed.

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