Restore managed application data

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the worker derives paths, excludes secrets and unrelated Docker/server data, requires rollback capacity, and specifies the exact permission scopes (applications:manage plus paid operations, applications:restore, spend caps for API keys). This goes well beyond what the structured fields convey.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the workflow prerequisites, then behavioral constraints and permissions. Dense but every sentence carries operational weight; nothing is redundant.

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 destructive, billable mutation with no output schema and no annotations gap, the description covers the workflow, the safety guards (approval, exclusions, rollback), and auth requirements. An agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by tying quote_token and idempotencyKey to their originating quote and replay semantics, reinforcing correct usage. It does not add much for the remaining six parameters, so it lands just above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (restore / pay for and queue replacement) and the exact resource (only the selected managed application's declared data from one eligible nightly server backup). The scoping language ('only the selected', 'declared data') distinguishes it from generic restore siblings like request_restore and rollback_snapshot.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite call (quote_application_data_restore), the required approval steps, and the token/key reuse rule. The sequencing is fully specified with no inference left to the agent.

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