Restore Journal from Backup

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: that ALL current data is replaced and that an automatic backup is created before the restore. Those two facts materially change an agent's risk calculus and are not derivable from the structured fields.

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 tight sentences with the destructive warning placed immediately after the purpose, which is the right front-loading for a data-destroying operation. The single-writer sentence is slightly jargon-heavy but still earns its place as a deployment constraint.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a destructive, zero-required-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, data loss, pre-restore backup, and deployment constraints — everything needed to invoke it responsibly.

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 coverage is 67%: confirm and filename are well documented, but use_test_db has no description anywhere. The description adds nothing about any parameter — not the required confirmation flag, not the filename format, not the effect of use_test_db — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Restore the journal database from a backup file"), which cleanly separates it from backup_journal, list_backups and team_list_backups in the sibling set. It never names an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 deployment constraint ("Enforce single-writer / single-instance only for restore-capable deployments") gives a real precondition for use, but there is no guidance on how to pick a filename (e.g., call list_backups first) or when restore is the wrong choice versus restore_entry or import_markdown.

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