restore

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context by stating that the current scene is auto-saved as 'before_restore' and that the operation is undoable, which informs the agent about safety and reversibility. It does not cover error cases or permissions, but the disclosed traits are valuable.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences (plus a Korean translation) that front-load the core action and the undo feature. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or excessive detail.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main operation and the undo safety net, but it misses explicit parameter semantics and does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., snapshot not found). The lack of annotations increases the burden, and the parameter ambiguity makes it incomplete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it only says 'Go back to a snapshot' without explicitly stating that the 'name' parameter refers to the snapshot name. The parameter's meaning is inferable but not explicitly clarified, leaving room for ambiguity. This is a notable gap.

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 states a clear action 'Go back' and a clear resource 'a snapshot', and explicitly mentions the auto-save undo behavior, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'snapshot' (which creates) and 'list_snapshots' (which lists). The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 when to use (to revert to a saved snapshot) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. It does not contrast with other tools like 'reset_destroy' or 'clear_caches'. The usage context is implied but not clearly delineated.

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