restore_setup

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the current setup is backed up before the overwrite, the operation takes about 6 seconds, and it returns the backup path plus resulting settings.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the action and its data source front-loaded before the side effect (backup) and the latency/return notes.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return values (backup path, resulting settings); combined with the destructive annotation covered by the 'backed up first' note, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must carry the burden. It only implicitly identifies the path as that of a save_setup output or compatible backup, giving no format, extension, or example — enough to infer intent but not enough to resolve ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb (restore) and resource (whole setup) and explicitly ties it to the sibling save_setup, so an agent can distinguish it from save_setup and reset without opening either schema.

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?

Clarifies the applicable input scope — a setup saved by save_setup or a compatible backup from another tool — which tells the agent when this tool applies. It does not name a when-not case or a competing alternative (e.g. reset), so it falls short of a 5.

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