restore_vps_backup

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it specifies that the operation irreversibly overwrites the entire disk state, that any data written since the backup is lost, and that confirm=true is mandatory. This adds concrete behavioral details that the annotation's destructiveHint=true alone does not convey, fully preparing the agent for the consequences.

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 a single, tightly crafted sentence with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the destructive consequence, and finally the confirmation requirement. Every phrase earns its place, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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, irreversible operation, the description covers the essential aspects: the action, the irreversible overwrite, data loss, and the required confirmation. Given that the annotations already flag destructiveness and the tool has no output schema, this is complete. Any missing details (e.g., post-restore VPS state) are minor and not critical for correct invocation.

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 schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the confirm parameter's role (must be true to proceed), which is critical. The other two parameters, vps_id and backup_id, are self-explanatory from their names and the tool's purpose, so missing explanations are acceptable. The description adds value beyond the schema by highlighting the mandatory confirmation.

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 states the exact action ('Restore this VPS from a backup') and resource, and clarifies that it overwrites the current disk state. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_vps_backup, delete_vps_backup, and list_vps_backups, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 implies usage when restoring from a backup and explicitly requires confirm=true, which serves as a safety gate. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous. A small improvement would be to mention when not to use it (e.g., for non-destructive actions), but the current text is sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

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