Restore Cube

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description goes beyond this by explicitly stating that the operation REPLACES the current disk and is irreversible. This gives the agent concrete knowledge of what will be destroyed, which is valuable for a destructive mutation 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 two well-structured sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the critical destructive warning. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and why caution is required.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is being restored, what is replaced, and that the operation cannot be undone. It relies on the schema for parameter details and on annotations for safety flags, which is appropriate. The only minor gap is that it does not state whether the Cube must be powered off before restoring.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter already carrying a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond explaining that the snapshot is the source of restoration. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a Cube's disk from one of its snapshots') and the resource affected. It also distinguishes itself from snapshot-management siblings (create_snapshot, list_snapshots, delete_snapshot) by emphasizing disk replacement, and from delete_cube by being a restore operation rather than a delete operation.

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 appropriate use case—rolling back a Cube's disk to a previously captured snapshot—and the warning suggests caution. However, it does not explicitly mention preconditions (e.g., that a snapshot must already exist) or contrast itself with alternatives such as creating a new snapshot versus restoring one.

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