ac_restore_configs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the operational precondition that AC must be stopped and the source of the data being restored, which is genuinely useful. However, it never says whether restoration overwrites current configs, whether it is reversible, or what happens if no backup is present — the main risk questions for a mutation tool remain unanswered.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the what (restore backed-up configs) is front-loaded and the precondition follows. Every clause carries 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema, unannotated tool, the description covers what it does, where the data comes from, and the key precondition. It leaves only a small gap around failure modes (no backup available) and the effect on currently active configs.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap here.

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 (configs) plus provenance — configs backed up by ac_launch — which explicitly ties it to a named sibling and prevents confusion with ac_launch itself. The crash-recovery parenthetical makes the scope 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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Only when AC is not running') and a triggering scenario ('after a crash'), which is exactly the kind of when-to-use context an agent needs. It stops short of naming the inverse tool (ac_launch) as the alternative or saying what to do if no backup exists, so not a 5.

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