snowflake_undrop_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action 'restore... using Time Travel' but omits critical behaviors like the requirement that the database be recently dropped, the reliance on Time Travel retention, potential side effects (e.g., overriding an existing database with the same name? not mentioned), or any permission requirements. This is markedly insufficient for a mutation 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is a single sentence with no redundancies. While it is extremely brief, it does not waste words. However, it could include essential prerequisite context while still being concise, so it loses a point for overly sparse structure that sacrifices necessary information for brevity.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with one parameter, but the description is incomplete for safe and correct usage. It does not mention the critical condition that the database must have been dropped within the Time Travel retention period, nor does it clarify whether the operation overwrites an existing database or is reversible. Although an output schema exists, the lack of usage context makes the description insufficient for an agent to determine when and how to invoke this tool reliably.

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 input schema contains a single parameter 'name' with zero description coverage (0%). The tool description does not mention this parameter or explain its meaning, format, or constraints. According to the rubric, when schema coverage is low, the description must compensate, but it does not. Thus, the description adds no value beyond the bare schema, leaving the parameter semantics entirely unexplained.

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 'restore' and the resource 'database', which immediately communicates that this tool undrops a database. It distinguishes from siblings like undrop_schema and undrop_table by explicitly mentioning 'database'. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from drop_database or indicate that it is the counterpart operation; still, the single-sentence purpose is clear without ambiguity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as the database being within Time Travel retention, nor does it exclude cases where the database cannot be restored. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context, so an agent is left without direction on selection or conditions.

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