restore_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds specific context: it explains that the current disk state will be overwritten by the snapshot state. This goes beyond the generic hint and clarifies the exact impact. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and includes a prominent destructive warning. There is no fluff; every word earns its place.

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 destructive tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the destructive side effect. It doesn't explain the return value or post-conditions, but given the simplicity and schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so all three parameters (id, name, confirm) are already described in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional semantic information about parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 VM from snapshot, with a specific verb and resource. It includes the API endpoint for precision. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like create_snapshot or remove_snapshot, the verb 'restore' is unambiguous.

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 usage (when you have a snapshot and want to restore) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It doesn't mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. For a destructive operation, more guidance might be helpful, but the purpose is clear.

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