liara_restore_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Restore' implies a potentially destructive write operation that could replace current VM state, but the description doesn't warn about downtime, data loss, or permission requirements. It also omits details like whether restoration is immediate, reversible, or affects VM status. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resources, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without 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?

For a destructive operation (restoring a VM) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what restoration entails (e.g., overwriting current state, potential downtime), what happens to the original VM, error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity and risk of VM restoration, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 100%, with both parameters (vmId, snapshotId) clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, relationship between VM and snapshot). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 'Restore a VM from a snapshot' clearly states the action (restore) and target resources (VM, snapshot), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'liara_create_snapshot' or 'liara_restore_backup' by focusing on VM restoration from snapshots. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'liara_restore_backup' which might involve similar concepts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing snapshot), exclusions (e.g., not for backups), or comparisons to siblings like 'liara_restore_backup' or 'liara_create_vm'. This leaves the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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