restore_file

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

As no annotations exist, description carries full burden. It declares 'DESTRUCTIVE', states loss of uncommitted content, mentions file watcher behavior, and notes no auth or rate limits. Highly transparent.

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?

Very compact: six sentences, each adding essential info. Front-loaded with 'DESTRUCTIVE'. No redundant words. Efficient.

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?

No output schema, but description lists return fields. Given no annotations, description covers purpose, constraints, behavior, and return format comprehensively. Complete for a destructive restoration tool.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions. Description adds critical constraint that hash must be from get_history and for this file, which is not in schema. This adds significant value.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'overwrite' and resource 'file content with version from git commit'. It distinguishes from siblings like update_file or delete_file by specifying the restoration action.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use only to undo accidental edits or recover a known-good version' and warns that hash must come from get_history. Lacks explicit mention of when not to use among siblings, but adequate.

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