Restore Snapshot

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds non-obvious context beyond them: the current body is first captured as a new snapshot, making the restore reversible. That is exactly the kind of nuance annotations cannot express. It stops short of stating permission requirements or whether the new snapshot is visible in list_snapshots.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core restore action front-loaded and the safety-net behavior immediately after. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema and annotations cover returns and safety, and the description supplies the reversible-restore behavior that matters most for a destructive operation. The only meaningful gap is the lack of differentiation from the sibling restore tools.

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 the single parameter is fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the source of snapshot_id without adding format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Put a page body back to a snapshot') and ties the input to list_snapshots, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like restore_page_version or restore_page, which sound like near-identical restore operations.

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 the prerequisite workflow by naming list_snapshots as the source of snapshot_id, which is useful. It gives no guidance on when to choose this over restore_page_version or restore_page, so an agent facing several restore tools must guess.

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