td_variant_restore

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains that the write is a byte copy, toecollapse never runs, no .bkp1 file is created, output must not exist, and a directory output keeps the original saved filename. This is unusually transparent.

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 compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds only essential behavioral constraints, with no redundant filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers critical behavior and output semantics well, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the meaning of `file` and `label` is still under-specified, leaving a meaningful gap in what the agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 provides no descriptions for any of the three parameters. The description thoroughly clarifies the `output` parameter, but `file` and `label` are left to inference from the tool name and sibling context. For a 0% schema-description coverage, the description should compensate for all parameters but does not.

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 action: write a saved variant back out as a .toe/.tox file. It also distinguishes this from related operations by emphasizing that it is a byte copy, not a repack, and by referencing comparison with td_project_diff rather than in-place replacement.

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 explicit usage context: use this to restore a saved variant to a file, do not overwrite an existing output, and use td_project_diff for comparison instead of replacing files. This gives the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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