restore_backup

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the operation restarts OpenDeck, and the confirm=false preview pattern gives a safe dry-run path. It doesn't state irreversibility or whether the restore can itself be undone.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The restart side effect and the confirm=false workflow both earn their 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?

The output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the destructive profile. However, for a destructive 3-param tool, the required backup_id is undocumented and no sibling (e.g. list_backups) is named as the source of a valid ID, leaving a real gap in how to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of 'confirm' via the preview flow, but leaves 'backup_id' (the required parameter) and 'show_window' entirely unexplained, including how a backup_id is obtained.

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 ('Undo an apply') and resource ('the files it changed back as they were'), which distinguishes it clearly from apply_changes and undo_live. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit two-phase procedure: 'Call with confirm=false first to see what would be restored', which is real when-to-use guidance. It doesn't disambiguate from the sibling undo_live, which leaves some routing ambiguity for a similar-sounding operation.

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