Restore backup

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explicitly labeling the tool as 'DESTRUCTIVE' and instructing to confirm with the user. It also clarifies that a new VM/container is created, implying no overwrite. This contextualizes the destructiveHint annotation effectively.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two short sentences. The first sentence establishes purpose, and the second provides a critical behavioral note. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (restore backup to new machine), the description covers the core action and danger. It could mention that the backup must exist and be accessible, but that is implied. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's function and risks.

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 documentation covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. The destructive warning indirectly relates to the confirm parameter but does not explain its usage.

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 action ('Restore'), the source ('vzdump archive'), and the result ('as a new VM/container'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like clone or create by specifying this is for restoring from a backup archive.

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?

Explicitly warns that the action is destructive and instructs to ask user for confirmation before invoking. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., clone, restore from snapshot) or mention prerequisites like the backup must exist.

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