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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, meaning this operation overwrites current state; the description never mentions that restoring will replace existing working state, nor is it reversible, nor what happens to a session that already has state. With annotations carrying the safety flag, the bar is lower, but a destructive state-overwriting tool deserves at least a warning about what gets replaced.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the trigger context; no filler. It is arguably too terse for a nine-parameter destructive tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 and the input schema is fully described, but the description is silent on core behavior: which snapshot is picked when snapshot_id and source_session_id are both empty, what the restore_state/record_restore_event flags actually do in combination, and the destructive consequence of the restore. For a destructive tool with nine optional parameters, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 schema already documents all nine parameters, including snapshot_id, restore_state, record_restore_event, and the source/target session IDs. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, which is acceptable at baseline 3 but a missed opportunity to explain precedence (e.g. snapshot_id vs source_session_id).

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?

Clear verb+resource: it resumes prior work by restoring a saved restart snapshot. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like restore_memory or create_restart_snapshot, so the agent still has to infer which one to use.

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?

It gives a trigger condition ('when the user asks to resume/restart or after context loss'), which is more than most tools offer. But it never says when NOT to use it, nor names restore_memory or create_restart_snapshot as alternatives, so routing between the closely-named siblings is left implicit.

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