Snowflake Undrop Database

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=false (a mutation) and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'using Time Travel' explains the recovery mechanism, which adds context beyond the annotations. Still missing: whether the operation fails outside the retention window, permission requirements, and whether dependent objects are restored.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, and mechanism, and no filler. It is appropriately tight, though arguably too sparse given the undocumented parameter and retention-window nuance.

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 exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. But with a parameter undocumented in both schema and description, and no detail on the Time Travel window boundary or failure behavior, the description is only minimally complete for a state-changing tool.

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 0% and the single 'name' parameter has no schema description. The description never mentions the parameter, so an agent must infer that 'name' is the dropped database's name (and its format/casing) purely from the tool name. It does not compensate for the coverage 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 gives a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('a recently dropped database') with the mechanism ('using Time Travel'). It is clearly distinguishable from snowflake_drop_database, though it does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like snowflake_undrop_table or snowflake_undrop_schema beyond the object noun in the name.

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 word 'recently' implicitly conveys the usage constraint (must be within the Time Travel retention window), which is a useful qualifier. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of what to do if the window has passed, and no reference to alternatives.

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