restore_project_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'atomic restore' and 'loss statement', hinting at destructiveness, but does not explicitly state that the restore overwrites project state, what permissions are required, or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for a potentially destructive action.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core action ('Plan or confirm'), and every word contributes meaning. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the basic usage pattern but lacks details about the return value of the planning phase (e.g., format of loss statement and confirm token) and does not clarify the impact of a restore (e.g., data loss, irreversibility). Given no output schema, more detail would be helpful for an agent to use the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'confirm' is a token from the planning phase and that omitting it yields a loss statement. This elaborates on the two-phase workflow and the role of the 'confirm' parameter.

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 tool's purpose: planning or confirming a project snapshot restore. It distinguishes the two modes ('Plan' vs 'confirm') and mentions key outputs ('loss statement and confirm token'). The verb 'restore' plus resource 'project snapshot' is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'create_project_snapshot' or 'delete_project_snapshot'.

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 provides clear usage instructions: omit 'confirm' for a dry run (plan), pass a confirm token to execute. It implicitly tells when to use which mode. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, though no direct alternatives exist among siblings.

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