restore_system_state

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds real value by identifying exactly what is overwritten (settings changes made through this server) and what state is restored (the session-start snapshot). It does not say whether the restore is reversible or what the response looks like, and restoring the same snapshot twice arguably reads as repeatable against idempotentHint=false, though that is inference rather than a stated 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?

One sentence, action first, scoping qualifier in a tight parenthetical; no preamble or filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool with full annotation coverage, the definition covers the essentials: what is written, where the state comes from, and the blast radius. Minor gaps are reversibility and whether it returns a status or diff.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies no arguments are needed because it targets a fixed session-start snapshot.

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+resource ('write back the system state') and constrains it to the snapshot read at session start, which cleanly separates it from get_system_state (read) and factory_reset (sibling listed). An agent can pick this without inspecting the schema.

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 parenthetical 'undoes settings changes made through this server' gives a clear condition for use and implicitly scopes out full resets, but it never names factory_reset or get_system_state as the alternative path when a full reset or a read is actually wanted.

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