tc_restore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the preview mode ('apply=false 只预览') and implies apply=true writes the workspace. However, it does not describe what gets modified, overwritten, or whether the action is reversible, which is notable for a restore/mutation tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the core action first, then the two most important usage constraints. Every piece of information earns its place with zero filler.

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?

The description adequately covers the internal logic of the tool (how to select a target and preview vs apply), and an output schema exists. However, it lacks guidance on tool selection among siblings and does not disclose the side effects of apply=true, leaving an agent to infer the restore behavior's full impact.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating that index and drift_id are mutually exclusive and that apply=false means preview only—constraints and behavioral semantics not present in the individual parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb '恢复' (restore) and resource (task-layer/change-layer), and explains the two identifier modes (index vs drift_id). It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like tc_resume or tc_switch.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as tc_resume, tc_switch, or tc_export. The description only provides internal usage constraints (choose index or drift_id, apply=false for preview), not tool-selection guidance.

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