Restore an environment from a backup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates a live environment, overwrites data and customisations, requires confirm: true to execute (otherwise a dry run), and runs a specific command. This is substantial behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it repeats the confirm requirement twice (first and third sentences), which is redundant and slightly inefficient. Overall it is concise but not perfectly streamlined.

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 complex 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behaviors: it mutates, overwrites, requires confirm, and is a dry run otherwise. It does not explain the return format or error scenarios, but these are not typically required for such a tool. The description is adequate for an agent to call it 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It repeats the confirm requirement but does not clarify parameter relationships (e.g., sourceEnvironment vs targetEnvironment) or format nuances beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'Restore', the resource 'a backup into the same or another environment', and the critical effect 'Overwrites the target's data and customisations'. It also names the underlying command 'pac admin restore'. This distinguishes it from siblings like cs_admin_backup_environment and cs_admin_copy_environment.

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 usage context (restoring from a backup) and notes the confirm requirement for actual mutation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No comparison to other admin tools is given.

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