restore_backup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. A restore is a destructive operation that overwrites current database state, yet the description says nothing about overwrite risk, required permissions, downtime, or reversibility. The verb "restore" implies mutation, which is the only signal present.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient information density. Nothing is wasted, but little is delivered.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema restore tool, the description should at minimum flag the overwrite semantics and any prerequisites. The schema covers the inputs, but the risky operational context an agent needs before invoking it is absent.

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 100%, so database, backupFile, and connectionName are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, path, or default-value detail beyond that, so the 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?

The description gives a clear verb+resource ("Restaura um backup do banco de dados") and scopes it to the database, but it is essentially a translation of the tool name restore_backup with no differentiation from the sibling backup tools (create_backup, list_backups). An agent can infer the purpose, but the description adds almost nothing beyond the identifier.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, even though create_backup and list_backups sit in the same sibling set. No prerequisites (e.g., an existing backup file, an active connection) or conditions are stated.

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