snowflake_undrop_schema

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 states the primary action (restore a dropped schema) but does not mention side effects, permissions required, failure modes (e.g., if the schema name is already in use), or the time travel window limitation. The phrase 'recently dropped' implies a constraint but doesn't specify details.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the purpose and mechanism, making it highly scannable. There is no redundancy or irrelevant 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not clarify the roles of the two parameters, lacks any mention of the Time Travel retention period or error conditions, and offers no guidance on the database context. For a relatively simple tool, more explanation is needed given no annotations.

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 mention any parameter information. It does not explain that 'name' refers to the schema name or how 'database' is used. An agent would have to infer the parameter semantics from the tool name alone, which is insufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('schema') and clarifies the mechanism ('using Time Travel'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like snowflake_undrop_database and snowflake_undrop_table via both the tool name and the explicit 'schema' reference.

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 the tool (when a schema has been recently dropped), but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like undrop_database or undrop_table. It does not mention prerequisites such as being within the Time Travel retention period.

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