Restore Index Backup

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing that it 'backs up the current index first' and that execution requires a matching token. This is valuable safety-related behavior that would not be known from the schema or annotations alone, enhancing the agent's ability to assess risk.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the core purpose. It avoids fluff and introduces important caveats (token, backup-first) in an efficient second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 restore tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: the backup identifier, the preview/execute modes, the token requirement, and the safety backup of the current index. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and likely outcomes without further documentation.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description compensates by referencing 'named backup' (backupId), 'matching token' (confirmationToken), and 'Preview or restore' (action). These implicit mappings clarify the purpose of each parameter, though it does not explicitly enumerate the parameters or their formats.

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's function: 'Preview or restore a named backup.' The verb 'restore' with resource 'index backup' is specific, and the preview/execute distinction is immediately clear. It differentiates from sibling tools like rag_clear_index by focusing on restoring from a backup rather than clearing.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool: a preview mode exists, execution requires a matching token, and the current index is backed up first. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, the destructive nature and prerequisite of a token are conveyed, giving enough guidance for most usage scenarios.

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