project_restore

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

Annotations indicate openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, which the description partially reinforces by mentioning replacement of archived projects. However, it omits details like state changes, confirmation requirements, or potential data loss.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys two modes. However, breaking it into two sentences or using bullet points would improve clarity for an agent.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks explanation of behavior, error conditions, return value shape, and parameter interdependencies, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 coverage, the description must compensate but only hints at source, root, and confirmProjectId. It does not explicate the meaning of name, projectId, or confirmProjectId, leaving agents to guess how to construct requests.

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 it restores a validated project backup into a new root or replaces an archived project. It distinguishes itself from encrypted restoration (sibling tool) by not mentioning encryption, but could be more specific about what constitutes a validated backup.

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 outlines two use cases but provides no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead. No prerequisites or conditions like backup validity are explained.

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