Restore a Micro record backup

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

Annotations already mark the tool destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds meaningful context: it replaces all current records, requires both digests to guarantee exactness, and explicitly excludes users, purchases, entitlements, products, files, and deployments from rewinding. This goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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 dense sentences front-load the action and requirements with no filler. The second sentence efficiently captures the main exclusions and safety condition.

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 restore operation, the description covers what is replaced, what is never touched, and the exact preconditions. With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, it does not need to explain return values, though it could name where to fetch a fresh digest (e.g., micro_backups).

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 the schema already documents every parameter. The description reinforces the relationship between backupSha256 and expectedCurrentSha256 as required twin digests, but it does not add substantial 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Replace all current project records with one exact inspected backup,' and clearly scopes what the operation affects and excludes. This distinguishes it from sibling backup tools like micro_backups, micro_backup_create, and micro_backup_delete.

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 states the required preconditions (backup digest plus a freshly inspected current-record digest), so an agent knows when it is safe to call the tool. However, it does not name or contrast alternatives such as micro_rollback or micro_backup_create, leaving the when-not-to-use guidance implicit.

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