db_restore_from_backup

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the creation of a new instance, but does not disclose side effects, cost implications, whether the source database is affected, or what happens if the backup is missing. This is a significant gap for a restore operation.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence summary, a structured Args list, and a Returns note. Every line earns its place, and the opening sentence front-loads the core purpose.

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 tool has six parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The argument semantics are covered, but behavioral transparency and usage guidance are missing. For a restore operation that creates a new database, an agent would benefit from knowing prerequisites and side effects, so the definition is only partially 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by listing all six arguments with brief semantic labels. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, clarifying that database_id is the source, backup_label is the backup timestamp, and the rest are properties of the new instance. The explanations are not deep but are sufficient for basic invocation.

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 a specific action: restore a database from a backup to a new instance. It identifies the source (backup), the target (new instance), and the resource (database), which distinguishes this operation from related database tools without needing to open the schema.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like db_fork_database, db_create_read_replica, and db_list_backups nearby, the description should clarify when restore is the right choice, but it does not.

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