restore_warehouse_in_place

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly warns that the operation is destructive and long-running, and states the warehouse will be unavailable for approximately 10 minutes. This is strong safety-relevant transparency, though it does not mention permissions or reversibility.

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 compact, front-loads the critical warning, and presents parameters in a predictable list. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no 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?

The description covers the essential invocation details: all three required parameters are explained, and the destructive, long-running nature is explicitly disclosed. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and no critical missing context stands out.

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 does by clarifying that workspace and warehouse accept names or GUIDs, and that restore_point_id is an ID string. This adds practical meaning beyond the bare schema titles, though it could specify where to find a valid restore point ID.

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 states a specific action ('Restore a warehouse in-place to a restore point') with clear verb, resource, and target. The 'in-place' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling restore-point management tools and from create/delete warehouse operations.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_warehouse, delete_warehouse, or restoring from a snapshot. The destructive warning implies it is a last-resort operation, but no alternative is named or compared.

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