ssh_backup_restore

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses destructive behavior: overwriting target, dropping existing objects for PostgreSQL and MongoDB, replacing for MySQL, and supporting files. It also mentions pre/post hooks, providing full behavioral context.

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 paragraph of 4 sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value, though slight reordering could improve scanability.

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 multi-engine, destructive nature, the description covers engine behaviors and hooks. No output schema is present, so the return value is not described, but the main operational context is sufficient for a restore tool.

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% and each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds overall context but does not enhance individual parameter meaning significantly. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 backup by ID, selects engine based on metadata, and distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_backup_create and ssh_backup_list. The verb 'restores' and resource 'backup' are specific, and the engines are enumerated.

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 implies usage when a backup ID is available, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., for non-destructive operations) or contrast with alternatives like ssh_backup_create or ssh_backup_list. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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