nws_restore_preview

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

With no annotations, the description does meaningful work: it flags the underlying restore as destructive, clarifies this call is a preview, and discloses a 10-minute expiry on the confirmation ID — a real behavioral constraint an agent must know. It stops short of stating whether the preview itself writes anything or what permissions are required.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the destructive nature and the confirmation-ID outcome before the parameter detail. Minor awkwardness ('need exactly one matching category') but no filler sentences.

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-value detail is correctly omitted, and the destructive/preview/expiry facts are covered. Still missing for a restore operation: what backup_path must point to, which category strings are valid, and what overwrite_existing_data does — the agent would have to guess on several required inputs.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does add value by giving the YYYY-MM format for attendance_month, mapping report_year/report_month to PublisherReports and person_ids/territory_ids to their entity types, plus a cross-parameter rule ('exactly one matching category'). However, backup_path, categories (allowed values) and overwrite_existing_data are left entirely unexplained, which is a substantial gap across 8 parameters.

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 names a specific verb and resource (preview a backup restore) and adds a concrete outcome (returns a 10-minute confirmation ID). It does not explicitly name the sibling tools nws_restore_commit or nws_restore_cancel, so the routing benefit is inferred rather than stated, keeping it at 4.

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 'preview ... and return a confirmation ID' framing strongly implies this is the required first step before a commit, but the description never says so, nor does it state when to skip the preview or what to do with the ID. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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