restore_project_artifact

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

Discloses that the current live file is overwritten without automatic backup, which is a key behavioral trait. Also specifies return value (confirmation string) and error condition (404 if path/backup_name not found). With no annotations, the description fully informs the agent.

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 concise with a header and three sentences. Each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, precondition, return/error. No fluff, well-structured.

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 (3 required params, destructive action), the description covers prerequisites, behavior, return format, and error handling. With output schema present, the described return is sufficient.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that backup_name must be an exact string from list_artifact_history and not to guess. This clarifies usage beyond the schema's short 'Backup name' description.

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 snapshot, replacing the live file. It uses specific verb 'Restores' and resource 'backup snapshot of an artifact'. The warning about overwriting without backup and the distinction from sibling tool list_artifact_history enhance clarity.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use list_artifact_history first to retrieve valid backup_name values. Advises against guessing or constructing backup names. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, setting it apart from sibling tools.

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