backup_restore_mysql

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates and destroys data. The description adds that it is a 'rollback' (implying existing data is overwritten), but does not state irreversibility, required permissions, or what happens to pre-existing databases, so it only modestly exceeds the annotation coverage.

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-loaded with the core action in one sentence, followed by a tight Args block. No filler or redundancy; every line contributes.

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 described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers purpose and both parameters adequately; the only minor gap is behavioral detail on how existing data is affected by the rollback.

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 coverage, the description carries the burden and documents both required parameters: backup_id is explained and its source tool (backup_mysql_list) is named, and databases is defined as the list of database names to restore. It could add more (e.g., what happens when a database does not already exist), but it meaningfully compensates for the empty schema.

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 ('Откатить' = restore/rollback) and resource ('базу MySQL из резервной копии'), making clear it restores a MySQL database from a backup. This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling backup_restore_file (files vs MySQL databases).

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?

Usage is implied by the verb, and the description helpfully routes the agent to backup_mysql_list for obtaining the backup_id, which is a useful pointer. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not warn that this is an overwriting operation versus alternatives.

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