restore_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered and the description is not required to repeat it. However, the description adds nothing at all: it does not say whose state is reverted, whether unsaved work is lost, or that restoring an unknown name fails. "Откат" (rollback) semantically suggests state replacement, which sits uneasily with destructiveHint=false, yet the text never resolves that tension.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler and the action front-loaded — structurally clean. But the brevity is achieved by omission rather than by precision, so it is under-specified rather than truly concise.

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 state-mutating restore operation with an undocumented required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations covering reversibility or error behavior, this description leaves essentially everything an agent needs unresolved.

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?

One parameter ("name") with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. The phrase "к снимку" only weakly implies that name identifies the target snapshot; it never states the expected format (ID vs label), or what happens when it does not match an existing snapshot.

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?

"Откат к снимку" names a specific verb (rollback) and resource (snapshot), so the action is identifiable. But it gives no scope detail — which snapshot, what state is restored, over what target — and does nothing to distinguish it from sibling save_snapshot. Vague-but-legible purpose, which is the definition of a 3.

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?

There is no when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, no prerequisite, and no mention of the obvious alternative save_snapshot. The agent is given no basis for choosing this tool over its siblings.

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