files.restore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden—and it excels. It discloses that the operation is destructive, that current uncommitted content may be lost, that the file watcher might pick up the change early, that there are no external auth or rate limits, and that it re-indexes FTS.

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 compact yet covers warning, operation, side effects, data loss, auth, return shape, and usage. Each sentence earns its place, and the 'DESTRUCTIVE.' warning is front-loaded for immediate risk awareness.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough for safe invocation: it names the return fields, documents the destructive side effect, specifies the source of the hash, and warns about watcher behavior. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining the hash must come from THIS file's get_history and that foreign hashes throw, as well as the data-loss consequence of supplying a hash. This justifies a score above baseline without redundancy.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: overwrite a file's on-disk content with a version from a git commit, then re-index FTS. It closes by carving out the intended use cases (undo accidental edits, recover a known-good version), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling file tools like files.update or files.delete.

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?

It says explicitly when to use this tool ('Use only to undo accidental edits or recover a known-good version') and adds a hard prerequisite: the hash MUST come from files.get_history for THIS file and foreign hashes throw. This provides an actionable and unambiguous gate, even without naming a specific alternative sibling.

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