Restore settings

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals important behavior: what exactly is written, that controller record port 0 and missing rules are skipped and reported, and that the device is re-read afterwards with remaining_changes as the verification result. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, or idempotentHint=true.

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, each doing work: the first states the operation and scope, the second states exclusions/reporting, and the third states verification semantics. The main action is front-loaded and there is 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?

For a mutating restore tool, the description covers preconditions through scope, exceptions, and postconditions; the user_authorized and backup_id requirements are already fully documented in the schema. The presence of an output schema and the explicit remaining_changes explanation makes the contract complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, and the description adds extra meaning by explaining what 'changed' means, that automation rules are applied in place by id, and that port 0 is a special controller record. These details enrich the schema's generic booleans without replacing them.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Write a backup back to the device,' then narrows the scope to per-port mode settings and automation rules. It also names the controller record exception, which distinguishes it from sibling setters and backup_settings.

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 action of writing a backup back implies this is the restore counterpart to backup_settings, and the detailed mechanics give clear context. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over compare_backup or individual set_port_* tools, nor gives any exclusions or alternatives.

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