snapshot_restore

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('restore') but doesn't describe critical behaviors: whether this is a destructive operation (likely overwrites existing indices), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens during execution (e.g., cluster impact). The example shows renaming but doesn't explain the broader behavioral implications.

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 reasonably structured with a purpose statement, parameter list, and example. However, it includes a parameter list that largely repeats what's in the schema (though schema has 0% coverage), and the example could be more efficiently integrated. Some sentences don't add substantial value beyond listing parameter names.

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 complex, potentially destructive operation with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or important behavioral constraints. The example helps but doesn't address the completeness needed for safe and effective use of this restoration 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?

The description lists all 8 parameters with brief Chinese translations, but schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no additional documentation. The description adds basic semantic meaning (e.g., '重命名模式（正则）' explains rename_pattern is a regex pattern), but doesn't provide detailed usage guidance, default behaviors, or constraints beyond the parameter names. The example demonstrates some parameters but doesn't fully compensate for the schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '恢复快照' (restore snapshot). It specifies the verb ('restore') and resource ('snapshot'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'snapshot_create' or 'snapshot_clone', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing snapshot), typical use cases, or warnings about potential data overwriting. The example shows a specific scenario but doesn't generalize to broader usage contexts.

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