sitebay_backup_restore

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions a 'dry run' option and default values for some parameters, but doesn't disclose whether this is a destructive operation (likely yes, given 'delete_extra_files'), permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens to current site data. The confirmation return is noted but without specifics on what that entails.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details and return info. Each sentence adds value, with no redundancy. It could be slightly more concise by integrating parameter explanations more tightly, but overall it's efficient and readable.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., destructiveness, side effects). The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but critical operational details are missing for a restoration tool, leaving gaps in understanding risks and outcomes.

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—and it does by explaining all 8 parameters with clear semantics beyond schema titles. It adds value by specifying formats (ISO datetime), defaults, optionality ('or omit for latest'), and purposes (e.g., 'Simulate restore without applying changes' for is_dry_run). However, it doesn't fully explain interactions (e.g., how dolt_restore_hash relates to restore_point).

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 specific action ('Restore a site to a previous point in time'), identifies the resource ('site'), and distinguishes it from siblings like sitebay_backup_list_commits (which lists backups) and sitebay_update_site (which updates current settings). The verb 'restore' is precise and unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing existing backups), when not to use it (e.g., for minor changes), or how it relates to siblings like sitebay_backup_list_commits (which might help select a restore point). Usage is implied but not articulated.

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