Restore snapshot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds value beyond them: 'Prompts (destructive)' discloses that an interactive confirmation precedes the destructive action, and 'overwrite required on clash' explains conflict-handling behavior at call time. These details are consistent with the annotations, so there is no contradiction.

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?

Two terse sentences with the core action front-loaded and behavioral caveats packed efficiently into the second. There is zero filler; every word carries information.

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, three-parameter tool, the description leaves consequential gaps: the meaning of 'slot', the semantics of dest versus 'back', and how this tool relates to restore-like siblings such as file_restore and git_checkout. The output schema and annotations cover return values and the safety profile, but the unresolved jargon and missing routing make the definition incomplete for confident autonomous invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies overwrite ('required on clash') and implies slot's role as the source being copied back. However, dest is never mentioned, and its default of '' is left ambiguous — it is unclear whether 'back' means the original location or a location specified by dest.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Copy a slot back' — and the title 'Restore snapshot' reinforces the operation. It is distinguishable from restore-adjacent siblings like snapshot_create, snapshot_list, and file_restore. However, 'slot' is undefined domain jargon and 'back' doesn't clarify where the content returns to, so it is clear but not fully self-contained.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. Among the siblings there are several restore/version-oriented tools (file_restore, git_checkout, git_reset, git_revert) that are never differentiated. The behavioral notes about prompting and overwrite are operational details, not usage routing.

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