Restore a backed-up JAR file to undo modifications, reverting a specific file path within the archive to its original state.
Restore a file from backup to undo modifications.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| class_path | Yes | File path within JAR | |
| session_id | Yes | Session ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Restore a file from backup' but does not disclose whether the operation overwrites the current file, what happens if no backup exists, whether the session must be active, or any permissions required. These are significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and its purpose without any filler. 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?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too thin for a mutation tool. It omits key context such as session prerequisites, the nature of the 'backup,' and the effect on the JAR file, leaving the agent to infer behavior.
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 100%, with both parameters (session_id, class_path) fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb (Restore) and resource (a file) plus the purpose (undo modifications). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like jar_edit_file by promising restoration from a backup, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.
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 phrase 'to undo modifications' implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., an open session) or when to choose this over reverting via other means. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.