restore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It says 'Write a backup to the iPhone' but does not disclose whether the operation overwrites existing data, is destructive or reversible, requires permissions, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 short and front-loaded, with three brief sentences that contain no filler. The terseness is efficient, though 'Same gate as apply' is vague and borders on under-specification rather than conciseness.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and one undocumented parameter. Although an output schema exists, the description does not provide enough behavioral context about restore/write semantics, data safety, or parameter usage for an agent to call it reliably.

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 single required parameter 'backup' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name. It does not clarify whether 'backup' is an identifier, file path, name, or selector, leaving the agent unable to supply the correct value confidently.

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 states an action ('Write a backup to the iPhone'), but the tool is named 'restore', creating ambiguity about whether it restores from a backup or writes one. It references 'apply' but does not clearly distinguish the scope from that sibling or from 'list_backups'.

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?

It gives a usage gate ('Only when the user explicitly asked') and points to 'Same gate as apply', which is useful context. However, it assumes the agent already knows what the 'apply' gate is and provides no explicit alternatives or when-not conditions.

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