Restaurar 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 explicitly mentions the destructive nature ('destructiva'), the abort behavior if the project is open, and the important safety net of creating a backup before replacing. This is good behavioral coverage, though it omits details about permissions, reversibility (beyond the auto backup), or response format.

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 and front-loads the most important warning ('destructiva'). It uses a compact list format, and every sentence adds value (destructive intent, abort condition, auto-backup). 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?

For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter formats (e.g., how to specify the backup date), required permissions (though not specified), and what the response contains. The output schema exists but is not provided, so we can't rely on it. The description covers the essential safety features but leaves many operational details undefined.

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?

The description does not explain either parameter beyond the names in the schema. The context signals indicate 0% schema coverage, meaning the schema itself provides no descriptions. The description does not compensate, leaving the agent to guess what 'proyecto' and 'respaldo' refer to, though the names are somewhat self-explanatory.

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 action: restoring a .bak-<fecha> backup onto a project. It mentions 'destructiva' to signal mutability. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, the action is specific and the resource (restoring backups) is clear.

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 a key usage context: it aborts if the project is openholmes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'snapshot' or 'listar_snapshots'. The condition 'if the project is open' is a clear prerequisite, but the description doesn't guide the agent on when to prefer this over other backup-related tools.

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