restore_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool will 'revert' workflow attributes, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a prerequisite and detailed scope. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the complexity of a destructive restore operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like side effects, permissions, or response format, which are critical for safe use.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by referencing list_snapshots for snapshotId but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already states.

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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Restore a workflow to a previous config snapshot') and resource ('workflow'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_snapshot, delete_snapshot, and update_workflow. It specifies what gets restored: 'steps, context, name, description, goal, and style'.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance to 'Use list_snapshots first to find the snapshot ID,' establishing a prerequisite. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, such as update_workflow for partial changes or discard_draft for reverting drafts.

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