restore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose concrete behavior: the current bar is snapshotted and moved to _Trash before restoring, and user confirmation is required. This is meaningful for a mutation tool. It omits permissions and any failure/rollback semantics, keeping it from a 5.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action leads and the safety caveat follows. Slightly telegraphic ('Ask the user'), but essentially zero waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the required snapshot_name is unexplained and there is no routing guidance against sibling snapshot tools, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation operation.

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 single parameter snapshot_name has 0% schema description coverage and is not explained in the description. It does not say what format a snapshot name takes or where to obtain it (presumably from 'snapshots'). The description fails to compensate for the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Restore the bookmarks bar from a snapshot.' This clearly differentiates it from snapshot-creating siblings like 'snapshot' and 'snapshots'. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

'Ask the user' is a directive but functions more as a safety behavior than selection guidance. It never says when to prefer this tool over 'snapshot'/'snapshots', nor where a valid snapshot_name comes from. Usage context is only weakly implied.

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