mt_restore

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('restore') but doesn't mention whether this is destructive (e.g., overwrites current state), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the response entails. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of a restore operation (likely a mutation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like destructiveness, error handling, or return values, leaving critical gaps for the agent to understand the tool fully.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents the single parameter 'sessionId'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3 as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('restore') and the target ('from backup to original state'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'mt_create_backup' or 'mt_load_session', but the verb 'restore' implies a distinct operation from creation or loading, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mt_load_session' or 'mt_apply_changes'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a backup created first, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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