Load an in-session snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return value shape and the format flag, but a restore operation inherently overwrites the current in-session state — the description never says the existing state is discarded or whether loading is reversible, which is the single most important behavioral fact for this tool.

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 compact sentence with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing parenthetical about format is slightly redundant with the schema but keeps the sentence readable.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and only three parameters, the description is adequate for identifying the tool and its return type in the absence of an output schema. It is however missing the destructive/prerequisite context (state replacement, dependency on a prior save_state and a live game_id session) an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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%, and each parameter (name default 'default', format enum, game_id from open_game) is fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'format:"json" for JSON' merely restates the enum, adding no syntax or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Restore a snapshot') and explicitly ties it to the sibling that creates those snapshots ('created by save_state'), so the agent can distinguish it from save_state without opening a schema. It stops short of a 5 only because it doesn't say what 'restore' affects (session/game state vs. some sub-resource).

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?

Referencing save_state implies the ordering (save first, then load), which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no precondition statement, and no mention of alternatives such as restart or open_game for reconstituting state.

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