subtree_restore

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description earns credit for adding real behavioral context: it refuses to apply when topology or keys have changed, and it leaves unrelated scene edits untouched. The scoping of the destructive act (only the checked subtree) is valuable information an agent cannot get from the annotations alone. It does not say what happens on rejection or whether the operation is atomic.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the guards and preservation guarantee. Every clause carries information, though the compressed jargon ('checked FK subtree') costs some readability.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety-relevant behavior well but leaves key gaps: parameter requirements, the source of the snapshot, and the result or failure mode of a rejection. An agent could invoke it but would be guessing about argument dependencies.

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% and both parameters (path, snapshot_id) are undocumented, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at a subtree selector and a stored snapshot, but never names or explains either parameter, and it is silent on the fact that both are optional — leaving undefined what happens when snapshot_id or path is omitted.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Restore every stored local/global pose of a checked FK subtree.' That is clearly distinct from subtree_pose_apply (which applies rather than restores) and subtree_snapshot (which creates). It never names a sibling, though, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied through the pairing with a stored snapshot and the 'checked FK subtree' phrasing; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over subtree_pose_apply, pose_restore, or checkpoint_restore, and no stated prerequisites such as requiring a snapshot_id created by subtree_snapshot.

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