ssh_backup_restore

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses destructiveness, overwrite behavior, specific commands for each database type, and the existence of pre/post-restore hooks. There are no contradictions or missing critical behavioral details.

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 well-structured with multiple sentences that convey essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with purpose and then details behavior. Could be slightly more concise, but overall effective.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, behavior, supported engines, hooks, and parameter usage. It does not mention return value or error handling, but for a restore tool, this is acceptable.

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% with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description adds value by explaining that database restore uses the 'database' parameter and files restore uses 'targetPath' with default '/', plus the 'backupDir' default. This enhances understanding beyond 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 clearly states the tool restores a previously created backup by backupId, reading metadata to determine the engine. It specifies supported types (mysql, postgresql, mongodb, files) and mentions hooks, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ssh_backup_create and ssh_backup_list.

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?

The description explicitly states the tool is destructive and overwrites the target, with specific behaviors per engine (e.g., pg_restore --clean --if-exists). It does not explicitly say when not to use it versus alternatives like ssh_db_import, but the context of backup restore is clear.

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