mujoco_restore_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it restores exact integration state, step/noise counters, and guard status, and explains how the guard latch behaves across force-stop vs tripped snapshots. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and precondition, and the second adds the most important behavioral nuance about guard latch behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 complexity (a restore operation with a nested snapshot object, no output schema, and destructive annotations), the description covers the critical preconditions and behavioral consequences. It could be more complete by explaining what happens to the current session state or whether the session must be paused vs. any state, but the essential information for safe invocation is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains the snapshot's role at a high level ('restores exact integration state, step/noise counters and guard status') and does not explain session_id semantics or the snapshot fields' meaning. The schema itself is fairly rich with field names and types, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds little parameter-level detail.

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 states a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('a paused session'), and adds the key precondition that the compiled model, config, and engine version must be identical. It distinguishes itself from siblings like mujoco_get_snapshot and mujoco_set_state by focusing on restoring a full snapshot into a paused session, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a session is paused and a snapshot exists, and it warns that the model/config/engine must match. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the precondition and 'paused session' context provide solid usage guidance.

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