recover_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether recovering overwrites existing state, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or whether it is asynchronous.

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?

Three words are not concise but under-specified; there is no substantive content to front-load. Brevity here reflects missing information rather than efficient editing.

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 snapshot-recovery mutation with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent lacks everything needed beyond the bare name to invoke it safely.

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% for both parameters. The description does not explain what `id` identifies (the snapshot? the target resource?) or what the `isNewSnapshot` boolean toggles, leaving the caller to guess at required input.

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?

"Recover from snapshot" restates the tool name with only a generic verb and object. It gives no indication of what is recovered (a snapshot? a system state from a snapshot?) and does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as load_snapshot, import_snapshot, recreate_snapshot, or restore_backup.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. With five-plus similar snapshot siblings, an agent has no basis for choosing this tool over load_snapshot or import_snapshot.

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