restore_project_backup

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions the restore creates a project and returns a summary, and describes the validate parameter. However, it does not clarify whether it overwrites existing projects, required permissions, or side effects.

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?

Description is short (fewer than 80 words), uses structured Args/Returns format with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 3 parameters, presence of output schema, and typical restore operation, the description covers key aspects: inputs, optional parameters, validation flag, and return value. Lacks details on conflict resolution or error cases, but overall adequate.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It does so: backup is 'payload returned by backup_project', project_name is 'optional name override', validate 'validates shape and references'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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?

Description clearly states it restores a Semaphore project from a backup payload, using specific verb 'Restore' and resource 'Semaphore project'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like backup_project (creates backup) and validate_project_backup (validates).

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 use after backing up with backup_project, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs others, nor does it mention prerequisites like project existence or potential conflicts. No alternatives are suggested.

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