restore_library_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the operation is strictly additive, never deletes/renames/overwrites, never touches existing playlists, and requires confirmation for writes. This fully informs an agent about side effects and safety constraints.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: it front-loads the critical 'STRICTLY ADDITIVE' constraint, details the exact scope of writes, and specifies confirmation requirements. No redundant filler or vague phrasing.

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 non-trivial restore operation with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers safety semantics, dry-run behavior, and category scope well. It lacks explicit details about the return value/response format, but the response_format parameter partially compensates and the preview behavior is already described.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has clear descriptions including defaults and enums. The tool description reinforces the dry_run behavior but does not substantially add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific operation—'restore of a library snapshot written by backup_library_snapshot'—and enumerates the exact actions taken: saving absent tracks/albums/shows/episodes/audiobooks, following unfollowed artists, and creating new playlists. It clearly differentiates this from sibling restore tools like restore_playlist_from_snapshot by scoping it to whole-library snapshots.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: dry_run defaults to true for read-only preview, writes require explicit interactive confirmation, and restores are refused without confirmation support. It does not explicitly name alternatives for narrower restore scenarios, but the strict-additive and dry-run guidance makes appropriate use clear.

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