restore_app_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses the stopped-app requirement and the danger window for concurrent writes, which is genuinely useful. However, it never says what existing state gets overwritten or deleted, whether the restore is atomic or partial, or what happens if the snapshot is missing or invalid.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the operation is front-loaded and the constraints follow immediately. Nothing is repeated and every clause carries operational weight.

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 restore/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description covers the safety preconditions but leaves the blast radius and parameter meanings unexplained. Adequate to avoid an obvious mistake, not complete enough to call 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% across three required parameters, and the description only loosely gestures at two of them ('explicit confirmation' implies confirm_stopped, 'app-scoped' implies app_names). The 'directory' parameter — presumably the snapshot source path — is left entirely undefined, so the agent must guess its semantics.

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 ('Restore') and resource ('verified app-scoped snapshot'), so the agent knows this is a reverse-of-snapshot operation. It does not name the counterpart sibling snapshot_app_files explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 precondition ('a stopped app') and an explicit prohibition ('never use while app/background writes are active'), which effectively routes the agent through stop_app first. It stops short of naming snapshot_app_files as the inverse operation or saying what to do when the app cannot be stopped.

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