Restore account backup

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds critical context: what gets overwritten, that the operation cannot be undone, that it requires a short-lived token, and that execution requires a second call. This substantially exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct value: purpose, availability, risk, and procedure. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 complex destructive tool, the description covers availability, risk, irreversibility, and the two-phase execution flow. It does not clarify how the 'confirm' boolean in the schema relates to the token-based confirmation, and with no output schema it leaves the second call's response unspecified, but the essential call sequence is clear.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds 'short-lived' for the token and ties the backup parameter to nuvio_export_backup, but the schema already says the backup comes from that tool and already explains the two-phase token flow. The confirm parameter's role is not clarified by the description.

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 states a specific verb ('Replace account data') and resource ('account data from a backup produced by nuvio_export_backup'), clearly distinguishing this from the many sibling tools. It also names the exact data domains overwritten, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It provides a clear availability condition ('Only available on self-hosted backends that expose sync_restore_account_backup') and a precise two-phase calling procedure. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like nuvio_undo, but the operation is unique enough that the guidance is still strong.

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