restore_file

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses destructive behavior ('current uncommitted content is lost'), side effects ('file watcher may also pick up the change before this returns'), error cases ('foreign hashes throw'), and absence of external auth/rate limits. This far exceeds typical disclosure.

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 (~4 sentences) and front-loaded with 'DESTRUCTIVE.' Every sentence conveys a distinct fact: action, hash requirement, data loss risk, watcher side effect, auth/limits, return format, and use case. No fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description states the return structure. It covers prerequisites, side effects, error conditions, and appropriate use cases. For a destructive restore operation with no annotations, this is thoroughly 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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, but the description adds crucial semantics beyond schema: the hash must come from get_history for this specific file, and foreign hashes cause an error. This is a meaningful addition to the schema's simple 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 states a specific action: 'Overwrite a file's current on-disk content with the version recorded at a specific git commit, then re-index FTS.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_file (editing) and delete_file (removal), and explicitly limits its use to 'undo accidental edits or recover a known-good version.'

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use only to undo accidental edits or recover a known-good version.' It also provides a critical prerequisite: 'The hash MUST come from get_history for THIS file (foreign hashes throw),' which guides correct invocation and avoids misuse.

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