nexo_recover

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: destroys live servers, snapshots current state, validates post-restore row counts, and conditions for overwrite. This adequately conveys the destructive and safety aspects, though it does not explicitly state if servers are restarted.

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 three sentences long, front-loading the main action and default, then listing effects and a condition. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

While the description covers key behaviors, it lacks details on the dry_run parameter's effect, post-restore behavior (e.g., server restart), and any return value or validation output. Given the complexity of a recovery tool with side effects, these omissions reduce completeness.

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 description adds meaning for 'source' (explicit path) and 'force' (override refusal to overwrite), but does not explain the 'dry_run' parameter, which is left undocumented. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate for all three parameters.

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 action ('Restore') and the resource ('~/.nexo/data/nexo.db from backups'), and the mention of hourly backups vs explicit source adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'nexo_backup_restore', leaving potential ambiguity.

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 usage context, such as that the tool kills live MCP servers and refuses to overwrite a healthy DB unless force=True. However, it does not suggest when to use this tool over alternatives like 'nexo_backup_restore', and does not list when-not-to-use scenarios.

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