rollback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Restore' implies a mutation, but the description does not disclose that this operation overwrites current state, whether it is destructive, requires specific permissions, or what happens if the named snapshot does not exist. These are significant gaps for a state-altering tool.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's action and object, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema (which partially relieves the need to explain return values), the description still lacks critical context: it does not explain that restoring a snapshot overwrites the current state, whether the operation is reversible, or how errors are handled. This leaves the tool's behavior in real-world scenarios poorly defined.

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 schema defines only one parameter, 'name', with no additional description. The tool description adds meaning by specifying that the name refers to a 'previously named native snapshot', clarifying the expected value. However, this is minimal additional context beyond the schema field title, so it does not fully compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Restore' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a previously named native snapshot'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_snapshot by implying it reverses an earlier action, making its function 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 the tool should be used when a snapshot has been previously created, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention edge cases (e.g., no existing snapshot). The 'previously named' phrase offers contextual guidance but lacks explicit exclusion or alternative references.

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