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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful context beyond them: exactly what is overwritten (stories, requirements, related content) and that the prior state is pushed onto undo history, explaining why the operation is reversible and thus non-destructive.

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 tight sentences: the action and its effect come first, the reversibility guarantee second. No filler or restated title text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description covers effects and reversibility; only minor gaps remain (any preconditions on the snapshot or project state).

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 coverage is 100% and both UUID parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning (no format hints, no constraints on which snapshot may be restored), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (restore) and resource (project snapshot) with precise scope: it restores the whole project to a snapshot's state. The sibling names (get_project_snapshot, projects_undo) make it easy to distinguish from read or generation tools.

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?

Explains the restoration semantics and points to projects_undo as the way to revert, which implicitly frames when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., snapshot must exist) or when to prefer this over importing/regenerating content.

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