restore_from_backup

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

The description discloses key behaviors: the staleness guard (refuses if target mtime is newer) and force override, and the return format. However, it does not mention idempotency, permission requirements, or potential side effects (e.g., overwriting files). Given no annotations, more transparency would improve the score.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the action, the second handles default logic, and the third covers the staleness guard and return. Perfectly structured for quick parsing.

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 description covers the main usage scenarios (default path, override, force) and specifies return values. It lacks details about error conditions (e.g., missing backup file) but given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly complete. No output schema, so return description helps.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It explains all three parameters: backup_path (implied), force (overrides guard), and target_path (default derivation and explicit override). This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Restore a backup file over its original target.' It provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this tool from siblings like backup_report, which creates backups instead of restoring. No ambiguity.

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 explains when to use the default target_path and when to override it, and when to use force=True to bypass the staleness guard. It implicitly guides usage by describing the staleness guard behavior, but does not explicitly contrast with other tools or state prerequisites. Slightly incomplete.

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