Restore Backup

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, but the description adds concrete behavioral context by stating it will overwrite the current environment and returns an operation_id. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps set expectations about the impact and async nature.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose, immediately states the critical consequence, and closes with the return value. 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?

For a destructive restore action with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, that it overwrites, and what it returns. It could mention async behavior or confirmation steps, but the core information an agent needs is present.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the action ('Restore an environment from a backup'), the resource affected, and the side effect. It is distinguishable from sibling backup tools like kinsta_backups_list or kinsta_backups_create, and the verb+resource combination is specific.

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 implies the tool is for restoring an environment to a previous backup state, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not directly guided.

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