tvh_restore_snapshot

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that validation happens before the first write, restores are sequential and non-atomic, partial failures report completed/remaining UUIDs, and topology changes can invalidate child UUIDs. These are concrete operational traits an agent needs before invoking a destructive mutation.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scope, followed by operational cautions. Every sentence adds useful information with no repetition.

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?

Behavioral and safety context is strong, and the output schema means return values need not be explained. However, with a required nested snapshot object and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves a significant gap about how the snapshot parameter should be formed.

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 clarifies the dry_run default indirectly ('Default previews the changes'). The required 'snapshot' object has a nested schema with additionalProperties, and the description does not explain its expected structure or fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Restore a snapshot's fields') and clarifies target scope ('to EXISTING nodes'), which distinguishes it from snapshot creation or node updates. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 implies a safe default preview via 'Default previews the changes' and gives a preference ('prefer restoring only the fields you actually changed'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus tvh_update_node, tvh_snapshot, or other siblings. Usage is implied rather than clearly routed.

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