restore_file

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: destructive action, loss of uncommitted content unless committed elsewhere, re-indexing FTS, potential file watcher interference before return, and no external auth or rate limits. It also specifies the return format. Every important aspect is covered.

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 very concise, with all sentences adding value. It is front-loaded with 'DESTRUCTIVE' and the core action. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: action, side effects, constraints, return values, and usage context. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, but the description adds critical context for the 'hash' parameter: it must come from get_history for this file, and foreign hashes throw. This adds meaning beyond the schema description. The 'file_id' parameter is not elaborated further, but the overall added value justifies a 4.

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 the tool's action: overwrite file content with a version from a git commit and re-index FTS. It specifies the verb 'Overwrite' and resource 'file's current on-disk content'. It distinguishes from siblings by requiring a hash from get_history for that specific file, and it narrows use to undo accidental edits or recover known-good versions.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use only to undo accidental edits or recover a known-good version.' It also specifies a constraint: the hash must come from get_history for this file, with a warning that foreign hashes throw. It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the sibling tools like update_file and diff_against_disk imply different use cases.

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