Restore Wordpress Backup

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

Goes well beyond the annotations' destructiveHint/readOnlyHint by spelling out the irreversibility ('anything changed since is lost'), the queued async nature, the few minutes of unavailability, the account-holder email notification, and the exact polling target (`get_hosting` with `wordpress.site.operations` until state is `done`). That is the operational context an agent needs to call this safely.

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?

Front-loads the destructive action in caps, then risk, then dry-run advice, then async behavior and polling. Dense but every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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, async, no-output-schema tool it covers risk, preview, queueing, notification and completion polling. The one omission is the `staging` parameter's effect on targeting, which leaves a meaningful branch of behavior to the truncated schema wording alone.

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 parameter definitions already carry their own meaning and the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance for `fs_id`/`db_id` and the sequencing of `dry_run`, but never mentions the `staging` flag, which materially changes the blast radius (live site vs staging copy).

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 — replace a site's files and database with one files backup and one database backup — and names the sibling (list_wordpress_backups) that supplies the ids. It is immediately distinguishable from create_wordpress_backup and delete_wordpress_backup, which manage backups rather than apply them.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: run with `dry_run: true` first, confirm the exact backup dates with the user, then execute. It also states where the backup ids come from and what to poll afterwards, so the agent knows both the precondition and the follow-up instead of inferring them.

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