restore_analysis

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description goes beyond that by naming exactly what is destroyed (the analysis definition is replaced by backup contents) and warning that current state is lost, which is genuinely useful operational context beyond the annotation.

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 short sentences with the destructive warning front-loaded after the purpose statement. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 tool has an output schema and destructive annotations, so the description needn't explain returns or safety. It covers the core action and its main hazard adequately, though it could mention backup-file compatibility constraints given the optional analysis_id override.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already well documented, including the fallback behavior when analysis_id is empty. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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) plus resource (QuickSight analysis) and names the source artifact (JSON backup file). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like backup_analysis and clone_analysis, which share the analysis domain but perform different operations.

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 use case (recovering an analysis from a backup) but does not state when to prefer this over alternatives like clone_analysis or rollback_dashboard, nor any prerequisites such as backup compatibility across analysis IDs. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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