snowflake_undrop_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action (restore) and the mechanism (Time Travel), implying mutability and time limitations, but it omits critical details such as required permissions, whether the restored table overwrites an existing one, or the exact conditions for success (e.g., table not purged). This is insufficient for a recovery operation.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately leads with the action. There is no redundant or filler content; every word contributes to the core meaning.

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's mutating nature, the lack of detail is a significant gap. The description does not mention operational constraints like time travel retention limits, whether the table must be in the same schema, or what the output contains (even though an output schema exists, the description could still warn about side effects or failure conditions). For a recovery operation, this is 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 zero description coverage for table_name, and the description does not elaborate on it. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no value beyond the schema – it does not clarify naming conventions (e.g., fully qualified vs. unqualified), case sensitivity, or any constraints. The agent must guess the expected format.

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 action (restore), the object (a dropped table), and the mechanism (Time Travel). It is distinct from siblings like snowflake_drop_table and snowflake_clone_table, and from undrop operations on other objects (schema, database).

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., the table must be within the time travel retention period) or mention when NOT to use it (e.g., if the table dropped long ago, or if you need a point-in-time copy rather than the most recent state). No alternative tools are referenced.

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