project_restore

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the non-overwriting guarantee and the size-based CLI fallback. It omits auth requirements, failure/idempotency behavior, and what operationId controls.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the constraint/fallback following. No filler, though it is quite terse relative to the 0%-documented 3-parameter schema.

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?

A mutating restore tool with no output schema, and the description covers the key non-overwrite guarantee and a CLI fallback. It still leaves operationId's role, failure semantics, and the expected bundle shape unexplained for an agent to act confidently.

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%, so the description must carry the load, but it only indirectly hints at 'bundle' and 'targetProjectId' (fresh project). The third required parameter, operationId, is never explained, and neither is the bundle's expected format beyond 'JSON'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Restore a complete portable JSON bundle into a fresh project'), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from plausible siblings such as project_copy, project_transfer, or source_import, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Provides a clear precondition ('into a fresh project', 'Never overwrites an existing project') and an explicit alternative for a specific case ('Use the CLI for large backup files'). It stops short of naming sibling tools like project_transfer or project_copy as the alternative for those scenarios.

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