Restore a backup

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the current file is snapshotted first, the operation is reversible, and the restore is atomic. This is exactly the kind of safety-relevant context an agent needs and could not get from the annotations alone.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core operation, the default behavior, and the crucial safety semantics. The main action is front-loaded and there is no filler or redundant restating of the title.

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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the required input, optional input behavior, reversibility, and atomic write semantics. It mentions pre_restore_backup as reported output but does not fully describe the response shape. This is a minor gap and does not undermine successful invocation.

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%, and both parameters are already well documented: filepath is required, backup_path is optional and defaults to the most recent backup. The description repeats the default behavior but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: restore an Altium library file from a backup. It also clarifies the default behavior of using the most recent backup when none is specified. Among the sibling tools, this is clearly the restore operation and is not easily confused with read/write or component-level tools.

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 description gives useful operational guidance about the optional backup_path and the default fallback to the most recent backup. However, it does not explicitly say when to use restore over other tools or point to list_backups as the companion tool for selecting a backup. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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