restore_backup

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

The description adds the non-obvious behavioral detail that the operation 'triggers a reboot,' which goes beyond the annotation's destructiveHint. It does not mention that current configuration is overwritten, but the concept of 'restore' combined with reboot provides useful transparency.

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, concise sentence that communicates the primary action and a critical side effect. No wasted words.

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 tool is destructive and triggers a reboot, but the description doesn't explain that the current configuration will be replaced or that network access may be temporarily lost. Mentioning the reboot is good, but a bit more context about the impact of restoring would improve completeness. Since an output schema exists, return values are not needed.

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%, and the description does not mention any parameters. It gives no hints about 'filename', 'device', or 'password', which are all undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter explanations.

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: 'Restores a system backup on the MikroTik device' and adds the notable consequence 'triggers a reboot.' This effectively distinguishes it from sibling backup tools like create_backup, list_backups, and backup_info.

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 context is clear: this tool is for restoring an existing backup. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the verb 'restores' and the specific resource (system backup) make the usage context obvious.

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