restore_snapshot

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

Even though destructiveHint=true already flags mutating behavior, the description adds concrete destructive behavior details: an existing index must be closed or renamed or the restore fails, and confirm=true is required. This explains the failure mode and safety gate beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 compact sentences deliver the core purpose, a key destructive behavior, and the prerequisites. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately warns about the important destructive constraint with no filler.

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 essential operational guardrails: the destructive nature, the index conflict rule, the environment flag, and the confirmation parameter. With an output schema present and annotations indicating destructive behavior, the remaining gaps around individual defaults like wait_for_completion are minor, so the tool is sufficiently understandable to be used correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does add meaning for rename_pattern/rename_replacement and identify confirm=true as a requirement, but it omits semantics for repository, snapshot, indices, include_aliases, and wait_for_completion, leaving gaps for an agent trying to construct a correct call.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Restore indices from a snapshot.' It clearly identifies the action and the entity, and is distinguishable from sibling tools such as create_snapshot or list_snapshots. The term 'Restore' makes the intent unmistakable.

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 strong usage context: it warns about the need to close or rename existing indices and explicitly lists the prerequisites of writes enabled, ES_MCP_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true, and confirm=true. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but no alternatives are really comparable at the same action level, so context is clear.

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