restore_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the two-phase commit (dry run then apply), the requirement for a confirmation_token, and the auto-backup before applying. Minor gap: does not mention what happens on failure or invalid input.

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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: state the action, explain the two-step process, and note the auto-backup. No redundant or irrelevant information; it is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the key behavior.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema (reducing the need to describe return values), the description covers the main workflow, safety mechanisms, and token-based confirmation. Missing details: error handling, file format expectations, and the 'host' parameter. Sibling differentiation is adequate but not explicit.

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 compensates for dry_run (implies default true), confirmation_token (explained as token from first call), and input_path (implied as backup file). However, the 'host' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose unclear.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Restore activities/remotes customization from a backup file') and specifies the resource scope (activities, remotes, UI pages, etc.). The two-step process distinguishes it from siblings like backup_config and diff_config.

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 outlines the required process (first call with dry_run=true, second with dry_run=false and confirmation_token) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like backup_config or diff_config. Usage is implied but not compared to siblings.

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