nexo_recover

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: kills live MCP servers, snapshots current state, validates row counts, and refuses to overwrite healthy DB unless forced. This provides agents with critical safety and side-effect information.

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 primary action, and efficiently packs all essential information without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers main action, source options, force behavior, and side effects. However, it fails to explain the 'dry_run' parameter and does not differentiate from the sibling nexo_backup_restore tool, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters. It partially addresses 'source' (explicit path) and 'force' (overwrite condition), but completely omits 'dry_run', leaving its behavior unexplained. Only 2 of 3 parameters are clarified.

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 tool's purpose: restoring ~/.nexo/data/nexo.db from hourly backups or a specified path. It uses a specific verb ('Restore') and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like nexo_backup_restore by focusing on the core database file.

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 implies usage for recovery scenarios but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nexo_backup_restore. It mentions a condition (force=True) but lacks 'when to use' and 'when not to use' context.

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