restore_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'Overwrites whatever currently exists at each snapshotted path,' disclosing destructive behavior. It also mentions return format. However, it lacks details on permissions, atomicity, or error handling for missing paths.

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 concise: front-loaded purpose, followed by args, returns, and an example. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, return format, usage context, and provides an example. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning: snapshot_id is described as 'The snapshot id to restore' and project_root as 'The project root the snapshot was taken under.' The example shows a timestamp format for snapshot_id, going beyond schema titles.

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 tool's purpose: 'Undo a risky command by restoring a snapshot's files in place.' The verb 'restoring' and resource 'snapshot' are specific. Siblings like list_snapshots and assess_command are distinct in function, so no confusion.

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 advises to 'Use list_snapshots to find the id,' guiding the agent to a prerequisite step. It implies usage after a risky command. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios or mention when not to use.

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