restore_to_operation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'restore session data to a specific operation point' without specifying whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or has side effects. It fails to provide necessary behavioral context.

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 very concise—one sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core action. However, its brevity comes at the cost of completeness, which is reflected in other scores.

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 that the tool has two required parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is too vague. It does not explain what an 'operation point' is or how the restore affects session state, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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?

The input schema has two required parameters (session_id, operation_id) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explain these parameters, leaving the agent without meaning beyond the schema. It adds no value to parameter understanding.

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 action ('restore') and the target ('session data to a specific operation point'). It provides a specific verb and resource, which is helpful. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'undo' or 'redo', which might serve similar purposes.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., undo, redo, or other session restore methods). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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