Plan full-Library Restore or Fork

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that restore preserves libraryId and requires explicit authority transfer, while fork creates a new libraryId with fork provenance. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail what verification entails.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the main action and then explain the modes. No wasted words, appropriate structure.

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 plan tool with no output schema, the description doesn't clarify what the plan returns or that it doesn't execute the operation, which is important given the apply sibling. The mode differentiation is helpful, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'mode' parameter (restore vs fork), implies 'authorityTransferConfirmed' via 'requires explicit authority transfer', and relates 'bundleDirectory' to 'backup directory'. However, 'targetDirectory' is not elaborated, leaving a gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('full backup directory'), and clearly distinguishes the two modes (restore vs fork) by their outcomes. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that this is a planning step as opposed to the apply tools, so it slightly lacks sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to choose restore vs fork based on libraryId preservation and authority transfer, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the apply_full_restore sibling or other plan tools, nor any exclusion criteria.

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