deployado_restore_backup

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for adding the concrete consequence — the target database is overwritten — which tells the agent what data is lost, not just that the call is destructive. No mention of irreversibility, permissions, or async behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 sentences, both load-bearing, with the action stated first and the risk immediately after. Nothing redundant with the name or title.

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?

Adequate for a well-annotated tool with a fully documented schema, but it omits the return behavior (no output schema exists, so the description is the only source) and doesn't acknowledge that restoring to a different target via destination_target_id means a non-source database is what actually gets overwritten.

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 all four parameters including drop_first and destination_target_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline for full schema 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Restore a database') and scopes it to a specific source ('from a specific backup run'). Unambiguous against sibling tools like deployado_run_backup or deployado_list_backup_targets, though no sibling is named explicitly as an alternative.

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 its use case (recovering a database from a backup run) and the overwrite warning gives the agent a reason to pause, but it never states prerequisites, when to prefer this over alternatives, or when not to call it. Usage is inferred rather than guided.

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