Dpanel Container Backup Restore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most important trait: this is destructive and requires confirm=true. It does not say what gets overwritten (container config, volumes, existing data) or whether the container must be stopped, so significant behavioral context is still missing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the destructive warning and the confirm requirement are packed in efficiently. It is terse rather than padded, though it borders on under-specified.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves key gaps: the meaning of 'id', what state is destroyed or overwritten, and whether the container is stopped or replaced. The existing output schema covers return values, so that omission is acceptable, but the input semantics are not.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially clarifies 'confirm' (must be true, beyond the schema's default=false), but leaves 'id' ambiguous — it is unclear whether id identifies the backup to restore from or the container to restore into.

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 and resource combination ('restore container from backup') that is clearly distinct from the sibling backup_list/detail/create/delete tools. It stops short of naming the target object of 'id' or the source backup, so the exact operation is slightly under-specified.

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 one concrete usage precondition ('需 confirm=true') and flags the operation as destructive, which tells the agent to be cautious. It offers no guidance on when to restore versus inspect a backup first, nor any prerequisite like stopping the container.

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