backup_restore_file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it never says existing files are overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or whether it requires stopped services or elevated permissions — all material for a destructive restore.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the action statement comes first, then a compact Args block. Nothing is padded, though the Args formatting is a docstring artifact rather than description prose.

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 no explanation, and annotations carry the destructive/closed-world profile. What is missing is the operational context a destructive restore needs — overwrite behavior, path semantics, and reversibility — leaving the definition only minimally adequate.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It does document both params and gives a valuable sourcing hint for backup_id, but 'paths' is only restated ('список путей для восстановления') with no clarification of path format (absolute vs. relative to a site root), which is critical for a restore operation.

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 and resource ('Откатить файлы из резервной копии'), which is enough to separate it from backup_restore_mysql by resource type. It does not explicitly name the MySQL sibling or any other alternative, so sibling differentiation stays implicit.

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?

Provides a useful prerequisite pointer — backup_id must be obtained via backup_files_list — which is genuine usage context. However, there is no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of the conditions under which restoring is appropriate or dangerous.

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