restore

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

The description discloses destructive behavior (destroy current sandbox) and file preservation. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., unsaved data loss), required permissions, or behavior on errors. It adds value beyond schema but is not exhaustive.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement up front, followed by structured args and returns. The returns section is vague ('Confirmation or error.'), slightly reducing clarity, but overall it is well-organized and not verbose.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers core behavior and parameters. However, it lacks details on error scenarios, preconditions (e.g., snapshot must exist), and output format. The output schema exists but is not utilized in description.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description adds essential meaning: snapshot_name references list_snapshots, sandbox mentions default value. This compensates for the schema gap and provides clear context for parameter selection.

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 clearly states the tool destroys the current sandbox and boots from a saved snapshot. It specifies that workspace files are preserved, which helps distinguish from related operations like destroy or clone.

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 use after listing snapshots (referencing list_snapshots in the args) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like clone or destroy. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites.

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