rba_restore_backup

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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait: it first backs up the current destination when it exists. This is useful and goes beyond a simple 'restore' statement. However, with no annotations available, it omits other potentially critical details such as overwrite behavior, backup naming, failure modes, or return values.

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 entire description is a single, focused sentence that immediately states the action and the key safety behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant information.

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 restore operation with two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify what happens when destinationPath is omitted, what the backup file format expects, or what success/failure looks like. The useful side-effect note is insufficient for a file restoration tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters, and the description does not explicitly map 'backupPath' or 'destinationPath' to their roles. It only hints at a source (.rba-backups file) and a destination, leaving ambiguity about the optional destinationPath and its default behavior. This falls short of compensating for the missing schema descriptions.

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 begins with the specific verb 'Restore' and identifies the resource as '.rba-backups file'. It also adds a key behavioral detail—backing up the current destination first—which distinguishes it from sibling restore tools like rba_restore_autoexec_backup. The purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rba_restore_autoexec_backup or rba_backup_file. It states what it does but does not explain prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when a different restore/backup tool would be more appropriate.

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