n2_kv_restore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and 'restore' is a mutating operation that implies overwriting or merging existing KV entries. It says nothing about whether existing keys are replaced or merged, whether the process is atomic or reversible, what happens if the backup ID is missing, or what permissions are required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than genuine crispness.

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 three-parameter destructive-ish restore tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell what state results after the call, whether prior data is lost, or how this fits with n2_kv_backup and n2_kv_backup_list.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each of target, project, and backupId documented including the enum and defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra meaning such as whether target must match the target used at backup time, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (restore) and resource (KV-Cache data from a backup DB), which is more informative than the bare tool name. It stops short of distinguishing the operation from siblings like n2_kv_load or n2_kv_backup, so an agent must infer that this is the inverse of n2_kv_backup.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to run n2_kv_backup_list first to pick a backupId, or how this differs from n2_kv_load. The agent is left to infer the backup/restore workflow from sibling names alone.

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