research_restore

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), it discloses that the ZIP is validated first, that the existing database is not overwritten, and that historical application paths are not readable. These are meaningful and consistent with destructiveHint=false, but failure behavior and auth requirements remain undisclosed.

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 packs the operation, the destination constraint, and two safety guarantees with no filler. Dense but well ordered.

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?

With no output schema and no param descriptions in the schema, the description correctly covers the safety profile and target constraints, but omits what a successful restore produces, failure handling, and explicit path/destination semantics. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% for the two params, so the description carries the burden. It partially does: 'ZIP 备份' implies path is the archive and '新目录' implies destination is the target directory, giving usable semantics even though neither is tied to its parameter name explicitly.

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 pairs specific verbs (校验/恢复 = validate/restore) with a clear resource (ZIP 备份) and target (尚不存在的新目录). It is easy to distinguish from the backup-creating sibling, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

It states two constraints on use – the destination must be a not-yet-existing directory and the current database is not overwritten – which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it never frames the backup/restore relationship or says when to choose this over research_backup, leaving usage to inference.

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