bricks_restore_full_backup

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses safety backup behavior, protection of infra options, and matching by ID for same-site restore. Does not detail auth requirements or rate limits, which is acceptable for a tool with clear safety mechanisms.

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?

Four sentences, each adding distinct information: purpose, safety, matching behavior, limitation. No redundancy, front-loaded with key action and inclusions.

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?

No output schema, so return value explanation is missing. Covers main behavior but omits details on parameters like wp_settings and create_missing beyond schema. Adequate for a restore tool given safety emphasis.

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 context for force_infra (dangerous) and create_missing, but these are already clear from schema descriptions. Does not significantly enhance understanding beyond schema.

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 site from a full-state backup file, listing included items (pages, templates, globals, WP settings). It distinguishes from similar tools by specifying 'full backup' and noting limitations (menus not restored).

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?

Provides guidance on safe usage: automatic safety backup, protection of infrastructure options unless force_infra=true. Also notes that menus are not restored. Could explicitly mention when to prefer this over bricks_restore_backup or bricks_restore_snapshot.

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