restore

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, and the description confirms the tool modifies configuration by reinstalling servers. It also discloses limitations about env vars and the dry_run option, adding value beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with a summary, docstring-style parameter details, and a returns section. It is informative but could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 complexity of restoring from a lockfile with multiple clients, the description covers input parameters, behavior, and return values (per-server status, env vars, success). Output schema exists, so return description is adequate.

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%, but the description provides detailed explanations for all three parameters: project_path (root directory), client (comma-separated names, 'all', or auto-detect), and dry_run (shows without installing). This compensates fully.

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 uses specific verb 'Recreate' and resource 'MCP server configurations from a lockfile', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like configure_server or remove_server.

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 states the tool reads a lockfile and reinstall servers, and explicitly notes that environment variable values are not stored, requiring manual setting. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is clear.

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