state_restore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly labels the operation as DESTRUCTIVE and details the exact consequence: 'this makes the chart MATCH the snapshot, which removes every study and every drawing that is not in it.' It also advises a precautionary action (take a snapshot first), providing thorough behavioral disclosure.

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-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the destructive behavior. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. It effectively communicates the key warning without excessive detail.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and the destructive nature, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it destroys, and how to protect against loss. An agent has enough to call it correctly and understand consequences. There is no missing information that would affect invocation.

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 schema already describes the 'name' parameter as 'Snapshot name to restore' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantics about the parameter, only restating that it is restored by name. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 action: 'Restore a saved chart state snapshot by name.' It specifies the resource (chart state snapshot) and the verb (restore). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like state_snapshot (create) and state_delete by focusing on applying a snapshot, and the destructive effect further clarifies its unique role.

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 does not explicitly name alternatives, but it provides a clear warning to take a snapshot first if the current state is needed, which guides when to use this tool versus state_snapshot. It implies usage context—when you have a saved snapshot and want to apply it—but does not state explicit 'use when' or 'use instead' scenarios.

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