rba_restore_autoexec_backup

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

The phrase 'preserve the currently installed file first' discloses a key behavioral side effect beyond what annotations provide (none). This is useful for the agent to anticipate that a backup will be made before restoration. It does not detail all risks (e.g., overwriting target), but the added preservation note is significant and not merely repeating schema info.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and a critical behavioral note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. This is an example of efficient communication.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and a key behavior but lacks important context. It does not explain what a sidecar backup is, what 'preserve' actually does (e.g., where the copy goes), or how targetPath relates to the default restore location. An agent would likely need more details about the restoration workflow to use it safely.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the parameters but does not. While backupPath is reasonably inferable from its name, targetPath's purpose and the meaning of its default empty string are ambiguous. The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names, leaving the agent to guess how to set targetPath.

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 a specific action: restore an autoexec sidecar backup. It also notes a unique behavior (preserving the currently installed file first), which distinguishes it from generic restore tools like rba_restore_backup. The verb 'restore' and resource 'autoexec sidecar backup' are explicit.

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 implies that this tool is for restoring autoexec sidecar backups, giving some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like rba_restore_backup or mention any exclusions. Since there is no comparison to sibling tools, the guidance is only 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.