backup_restore

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: async execution, the follow-up status tool, and the precise condition (purgeExisting=true) under which all company data is deleted. It stops short of stating whether the restore is reversible or which permissions are required.

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?

Four short sentences, no filler, each carrying distinct information (action, async behavior, follow-up tool, destructive caveat). Placing the destructive warning last rather than first slightly weakens front-loading of the most critical fact.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the call returns so the agent can poll backup_restore_status (e.g., a job or backup identifier). It names the status tool but not how to use its result, leaving a meaningful gap for an async operation.

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%, so filePath, companyId, and purgeExisting are already documented. The description's warning about purgeExisting largely restates the schema's own 'Delete all existing company data before restoring' text, so it adds little new parameter meaning.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource pair ('restore company data' from an uploaded backup ZIP), which is unambiguous against sibling tools like backup_create and backup_download. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the destructive restore semantics make the distinction obvious.

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 clear operating context: the restore is asynchronous and progress should be polled via backup_restore_status, which is the correct alternative tool for status. It lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., when to use backup_create instead, or prerequisites like a completed upload).

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