snapshot_load

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'changes the whole board' aligns with that. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation requires confirmation and the current board is auto-saved as a preset first, which mitigates the destructive nature. This goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the critical safety behavior. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 operation with no output schema, the description covers the key context: what it does, that it changes the whole board, that confirmation is required, and that the current state is auto-saved for recovery. It doesn't explain what happens if confirm=false or what the response looks like, but the annotations and schema cover the safety profile.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'slot' implicitly via 'one of the mixer's internal snapshots' and 'confirm' via 'Always needs confirm', but it doesn't explain what values slot accepts or what confirm does beyond the schema's default false. The description adds some meaning but not enough to fully compensate for the 0% 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 clearly states the verb 'load' and the resource 'one of the mixer's internal snapshots', and adds the important scope 'changes the whole board'. It distinguishes from load_preset by noting the auto-save behavior, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling in the description.

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 says 'Always needs confirm', which is a clear usage requirement. It also explains the auto-save behavior and mentions that the current board can be restored with load_preset, giving the agent a recovery path. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs snapshot_save or load_preset, but the context is clear enough.

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