restore_backup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It valuably discloses that current steps are backed up first, making the operation effectively recoverable, but says nothing about permissions, failure modes with an invalid backup file, or what the restore returns.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the safety property. No filler or 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?

For a one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical safety behavior but leaves the source of backup_file and the post-restore state unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would need to infer.

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 0% and the single required parameter 'backup_file' has no description in the schema, so the description must compensate. It implies the file holds pre-overwrite steps but never explains how an agent obtains a valid backup_file value, its format, or where backups are discoverable.

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?

Names a specific verb (restore) and resource (builder steps saved before an overwrite), which is concrete enough for an agent to act on. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like save_structured_workout or preview_structured_workout, and the relationship between 'builder steps' and 'structured workout' is left implicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus save_structured_workout or preview_structured_workout, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The phrase 'saved before an overwrite' hints at the triggering scenario but never states it as a rule.

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