Restore an image to a saved clone state, overwriting all changes made since the clone was created.
Restore an image from a backup clone, replacing all changes since the clone was made.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clone_id | Yes | Clone view ID to restore from | |
| target_id | Yes | Target view ID to overwrite |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing destructive behavior. 'Replacing all changes since the clone was made' clearly signals that the target image will be overwritten, which is essential safety information for an agent.
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, well-structured sentence states the action, source, and consequence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 two-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description plus schema provide adequate context: what happens, which parameters are needed, and what the effect will be. Minor lack of explicit alternative guidance prevents a perfect score.
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%, and both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond identifying the operation's overall purpose.
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 identifies the action ('Restore'), the resource ('an image'), and the source ('a backup clone'), while distinguishing it from sibling tools like clone_image. The phrase 'replacing all changes since the clone was made' adds a precise outcome.
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 use case is implied: restore when you want to revert an image to a previously cloned state. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the routing decision partially inferential.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.