ssh_backup_restore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explicitly warns that the operation is destructive and overwrites the target, details per-engine behavior (pg_restore --clean --if-exists, mongorestore --drop, MySQL piping), and mentions pre/post-restore hooks. This is exemplary disclosure.

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 four focused sentences: main action first, then destructive warning, then engine-specific details, then supported engines and hooks. Every sentence adds value; no filler or 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?

For a destructive restore operation with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral facts, engine differences, supported engines, and hooks. The only notable gap is the lack of any statement about return values, success/failure indication, or required preconditions beyond the existence of the backup.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about engine selection via metadata but does not elaborate on individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. No deduction is warranted given the full schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Restores a previously created backup identified by backupId'. It also explains the engine-selection mechanism, which distinguishes this from siblings like ssh_backup_create and ssh_db_import. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 phrase 'previously created backup' clearly ties this tool to backup-creation workflows, and the supported engines are listed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as ssh_db_import or state when one should be preferred over the other, leaving some routing to inference.

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