panelica_snapshots_post_v1_snapshots_id_restore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds value by stating the required scope (backups:restore) and confirming mutability with 'Mutating: changes server state—a generic trait for a restore operation. It does not disclose what a restore actually entails (e.g., overwriting current files/databases, temporary downtime, irreversibility of current-state changes), which would be the most valuable behavioral context here. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured: action line, HTTP endpoint, category, scopes, and mutability flag each on their own line with no wasted words. Minor redundancy exists since 'Restore snapshot' repeats the tool name and title, but overall the format is efficient and front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with an open body schema and no output schema, the description covers the action, endpoint, category, scopes, and mutability—adequate but with clear gaps. It gives no guidance on what the body parameter should contain, what the restore actually changes beyond 'server state', or what the agent should expect in the response.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the schema descriptions are weak: 'Path parameter: id' is tautological and the body is described only as 'Schema not statically declared — see API docs' with additionalProperties true. The description adds only marginal meaning by implying id identifies the snapshot to restore; it does not help the agent understand what the open body should contain.

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 and resource ('Restore snapshot') and reinforces it with the HTTP endpoint POST /v1/snapshots/:id/restore and Category: Snapshots. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name sibling restore tools (backups restore, file-manager trash restore, wordpress restore) to differentiate from them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as creating a snapshot (panelica_snapshots_post_v1_snapshots), deleting one, or using panelica_backups_post_v1_backups_filename_restore. The only prerequisite mentioned is 'Required scopes: backups:restore', which is an auth constraint rather than usage context. Nothing tells an agent when restore is appropriate (e.g., after data loss) or what conditions should route to a different tool.

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