spine_restore_backupRestores a Spine project backup from a backup ID; dry-run by default, while apply backs up the current file and restores atomically.
Puts a backup back. Dry-run by default; apply backs up the current file first, then restores atomically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apply | No | ||
| force | No | Even if open in Spine | |
| project | Yes | .spine project | |
| backupId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.70.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description's real contribution is the mitigation story: dry-run default, backup of the current file before applying, and atomic restore. That is useful context beyond the annotations, but gaps remain — it doesn't say whether force bypasses the backup step, what a dry-run returns, or whether the restore is reversible.
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 tight sentences with the behavior and safety model front-loaded and no filler. Slightly elliptical phrasing ('puts a backup back') costs a little precision but no space.
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 four-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the risky part (mutation only on apply, with an automatic safety copy) well. What's missing is modest: how to obtain backupId and what a dry-run reports.
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 50% with apply and backupId undocumented there; the description compensates for apply by explaining the dry-run/apply split, but says nothing about backupId format or provenance. The force parameter's meaning still lives only in the 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?
The description names a specific verb and resource (restoring a backup of a file) and implies the counterpart to spine_list_backups without naming it. 'Puts a backup back' is colloquial but unambiguous about direction of the operation.
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 clearly explains the default/opt-in mechanics (dry-run unless apply is passed), which is the main usage decision. However, it never says when to prefer this over other recovery paths or that backupId should come from spine_list_backups, leaving the caller to infer prerequisite steps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.