spine_restore_backup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses high-risk nature, required confirm flag, default dryRun, and backup of current target before actual restore. Additional details like exact overwrite behavior or error conditions would improve transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose and critical behavioral constraints. Every phrase earns its place: high risk, confirm requirement, dryRun default, and backup before restore.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main workflow, risk, defaults, and safety measure (backup). It does not detail error handling or expected return values, but for a restore tool, the core behavior is well-explained.

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 80% (missing dryRun description). The description compensates by stating dryRun defaults to true, and clarifies confirm must be true. This adds value beyond the schema, especially for the required confirm and default dryRun.

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 backup to target JSON file) and resource (backups/ directory and target file). It distinguishes from sibling tools like spine_list_backups (listing) and spine_validate_json (validating) by specifying it's a restore operation with high risk and default dry run.

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 when restoring from a backup, with explicit notes that confirm must be true and dryRun defaults to true. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools, but the context of sibling tools makes the purpose clear.

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