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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it describes a two-phase restore where preparation leaves current content untouched and publication is atomic, which is meaningful for a destructive mutation. It stops short of saying what exactly is replaced or whether the prior state is recoverable.

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 core action, and the second sentence adds new information rather than restating the first. No filler.

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 no explanation, and the two-phase behavior is captured. Yet for a destructive staged operation the description omits the surrounding workflow implied by sheets_get_version_restore and sheets_restart_version_restore, and never states what content is overwritten or whether the restore can be interrupted.

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 only 33%; idempotencyKey is thoroughly documented in the schema, but sheetId and snapshotId have no descriptions anywhere. The phrase "by ID" weakly implies snapshotId identifies the snapshot, but sheetId's role and the distinction between the two UUIDs are never clarified, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 a saved snapshot by ID"), which is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like sheets_get_version_restore or sheets_restart_version_restore. However, it never explicitly differentiates itself from the other restore tools (sheets_restore, sheets_restore_folder), so the sibling contrast is left to inference.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: it does not say when to prefer this over sheets_restore or when to resume a pending restore via sheets_restart_version_restore. The presence of sheets_get_version_restore and sheets_restart_version_restore strongly implies a staged workflow, but the description never mentions prerequisites or ordering.

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