Commits a previewed backup restore after verifying the backup and remote data remain unchanged, optionally overwriting existing data. Use it to finalize a restore only when validation still matches.
Commit a previewed backup restore if the backup and remote data are unchanged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirmation_id | Yes | ||
| overwrite_existing_data | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It hints at a staleness guard but says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, what happens when the check fails, or that overwrite_existing_data can destroy existing data — the most consequential behavior of a restore commit goes unmentioned.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and its precondition, with no filler. Nothing is wasted, though brevity here comes at the cost of the gaps scored elsewhere.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a destructive two-parameter mutation with no annotations and 0% parameter documentation, the definition omits the overwrite flag, the source of confirmation_id, and failure semantics — an agent cannot call this safely from the description alone.
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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Previewed' weakly implies confirmation_id originates from the preview step, but the destructive overwrite_existing_data flag is never acknowledged, leaving an agent blind to its meaning and default.
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?
Specific verb (commit) plus specific resource (a previously previewed backup restore), with the guard condition stated inline. It implicitly separates itself from nws_restore_preview and nws_restore_cancel, though it never names them.
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 clause 'if the backup and remote data are unchanged' gives a real precondition for calling. However, no alternatives are named (no pointer back to nws_restore_preview to obtain the confirmation_id, no mention of nws_restore_cancel when the guard fails), so routing to the sibling is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.