restore_project_snapshot

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the atomic nature and loss statement but omits critical behavioral traits such as whether the restore is destructive (overwrites current state), required permissions, or reversibility. The include_auth parameter's behavior (restoring auth but not sessions) is only in schema, not description.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 (4 parameters, two-phase flow) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the core workflow. However, it lacks details on return values, error conditions, and idempotency, leaving some gaps for a fully informed agent.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, the tool description adds value by explaining the two-phase flow and how 'confirm' function differs when omitted vs passed. This clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's description of 'token from restore_plan'.

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 as 'Plan or confirm a project snapshot restore', specifying the two-phase action. It uniquely identifies the tool among siblings, as no other 'restore' tool exists.

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 on how to use the tool: omit confirm for planning (to get loss statement and confirm token) and pass confirm to execute. It implies the two-step workflow, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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