load_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature of the operation ('replaces the entire graph') and adds a safety mechanism ('auto snapshot saved before replacement') that allows undo. This directly informs the agent of the primary behavioral trait and the built-in rollback, which is valuable context beyond the schema.

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 two short sentences in Korean, front-loaded with the core action (load and replace) followed by the safety note. There is no redundant fluff; every word adds informational value. Structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has a single required parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main effect and the rollback behavior. It does not explain where snapshot_id comes from or error cases, but these are relatively minor given the simplicity of the tool. The auto-save detail is a notable plus that mitigates potential user regret.

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 the description does not elaborate on the snapshot_id parameter at all. It does not explain what the ID refers to, how it is obtained (e.g., from list_snapshots), or any format requirements. Since the schema provides no description and the tool description ignores it, parameter meaning is entirely missing.

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 verb ('loads') and resource ('snapshot') and specifies the effect: it replaces the entire current graph. This distinguishes it from siblings like save_snapshot, list_snapshots, and import_graph, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 usage (restoring a graph by loading a snapshot) and provides a safety note about auto-snapshot save, which hints at a benefit of using this over alternatives. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings (e.g., import_graph for external data, or save_snapshot for capturing state) nor state any conditions for when not to use it.

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