db_restore

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a 'destructive operation,' requires 'admin mode and a confirmation token,' and has path sandboxing constraints ('Paths are sandboxed to BERTH_BACKUP_DIR'). This covers safety, permissions, and environmental limits well.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by critical behavioral and usage details. Every sentence adds essential value with zero wasted words, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 this is a destructive operation with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description does well by covering safety requirements and path constraints. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, it could better address parameter formats or error conditions for full completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of 'confirmation_token' (required for this destructive operation) and clarifies that 'input_path' is sandboxed to BERTH_BACKUP_DIR. However, it doesn't mention 'connection_id' or provide format details for any parameters, leaving some gaps.

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 verb ('Restore') and resource ('a database from a backup file'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like db_backup (which creates backups) and db_query/execute (which query/execute commands).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Requires admin mode and a confirmation token') and implies it's for restoring databases from backups. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., when to use db_backup instead).

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