Restore Mira settings from a snapshot

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining that server-managed fields such as publicKey and mirrored channels.webChat list are stripped automatically. It also discloses a subtle behavioral outcome: the minted publicKey survives rollback and remains harmless while the widget is disabled. This is valuable edge-case context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 three sentences with no filler. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the core action, the second identifies the automatic stripping behavior, and the third clarifies a nuanced exception. The structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 the tool has only one parameter, a high-coverage schema, and an output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: what snapshot to provide, how server-managed fields are handled, and the surprising publicKey behavior. The destructive nature is already declared in annotations, so nothing critical is missing.

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% and the schema already describes the settings parameter as 'The full settings snapshot to restore. Pass it back unmodified.' The tool description adds semantic value by clarifying the snapshot must be a previously returned one and that server-managed fields will be stripped, which helps the agent understand what 'unmodified' means in practice.

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 'Roll back' and identifies the exact resource: Mira configuration restored from a previously returned settings snapshot. This clearly differentiates the tool from update_mira_settings and other sibling tools by scoping it to snapshot restoration rather than general updates.

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 context for when to use the tool: when rolling back to a previously returned settings snapshot. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the phrase 'previously returned settings snapshot' sets a precise prerequisite that guides correct selection.

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