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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a side effect ('takes a safety snapshot first'), an authorization requirement for production, and a non-obvious return branch with its downstream action. It omits that a restore overwrites/replaces current data (destructiveness) and any downtime expectation, leaving a gap for a mutation this risky.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by side effect, permission gate, and return-handling. No filler; every sentence carries operational information.

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 3-param mutation with no output schema and no annotations, it covers the crucial non-obvious behaviors (safety snapshot, approval gating, pending_approval handling). It stops short of covering the success-path result and any downtime/reversibility caveats an agent might want to relay.

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 67%: env and project are documented in the schema but 'snapshot' has no description. The description references snapshots only generically and doesn't explain the identifier format or point to db.snapshots for retrieving one, so it adds little beyond the schema for the uncovered parameter.

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 and resource ('Restore an environment database from a snapshot'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the snapshot-creating siblings db.snapshot/db.snapshots. An agent knows exactly what action this performs without inspecting the schema.

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?

Gives clear contextual guidance: production requires owner approval, and it explains the pending_approval branch with the follow-up step (tell the owner, then poll approval.status). It doesn't name alternative restore/rollback tools, but the conditional flow is explicit enough to invoke correctly.

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