restore_rules

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Changes nothing' and describes the return value (draft_id and rules to be changed). However, it does not mention idempotency or potential error conditions, but the core behavioral trait is well-stated.

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: two sentences plus an Args section. It front-loads the purpose and immediately conveys the non-destructive nature. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, preview operation, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, usage flow, parameter source, and return value. It could mention error handling or validation, but overall it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema has one required parameter with a title. The description adds meaning by specifying the source: 'An id from `list_backups`.' This provides crucial context beyond the schema's title, compensating for 0% schema description coverage.

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 it is a 'PREVIEW' restoring the rule set from a snapshot and 'Changes nothing.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `confirm_restore_rules` by explaining that this tool returns a draft_id for user approval before the actual restore.

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 description explicitly instructs to show the result to the user for approval and then call `confirm_restore_rules`. It also mentions the prerequisite: backup_id from `list_backups`, providing clear context for when to use this tool.

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