NEXO Brain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is 'DESTRUCTIVE', which is a critical behavioral trait indicating it will overwrite or replace the current database. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, potential side effects (e.g., data loss), or rate limits, leaving gaps in understanding the full behavior.

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—a single phrase with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Restore database from a backup') and includes a critical warning ('DESTRUCTIVE') efficiently. Every part of the description earns its place by conveying essential information succinctly.

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 (destructive database operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the destructive nature but misses key context: no annotations, no parameter details, and no usage guidelines. For a high-stakes tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to invoke it safely and effectively.

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 input schema has 1 parameter ('filename') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description adds no information about this parameter—it doesn't explain what 'filename' refers to (e.g., backup file name from a list), its format, or where to find valid values. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('database from a backup'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'nexo_backup_list' or 'nexo_backup_now', which are related but serve different functions (listing backups vs. creating backups).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions it's 'DESTRUCTIVE' but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing backup file), exclusions, or recommend other tools for non-destructive operations. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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