restore_warehouse_in_place

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is destructive and long-running, and that the warehouse will be unavailable for ~10 minutes. This is good, but it could be more specific about what 'destructive' entails (e.g., data loss, overwriting current state) and whether the operation is reversible.

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 extremely concise: one line for the purpose, a warning block, and three parameter descriptions. It is front-loaded with the key action, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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's complexity (destructive, long-running), the description covers core aspects: purpose, warnings, parameter explanations. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Missing elements include prerequisites (e.g., existence of restore point), error conditions, and what happens to the warehouse state after restore. Still, it is fairly complete for a restore tool.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The 'Args:' section adds meaning: 'workspace: Workspace name or GUID,' 'warehouse: Warehouse name or GUID,' and 'restore_point_id: The restore point ID string to restore to.' This provides type context beyond the simple string type in the schema, though it could be more detailed (e.g., format of restore_point_id or how to obtain it).

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 'Restore a warehouse in-place to a restore point,' specifying the verb (restore), resource (warehouse), and context (in-place, to a restore point). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_restore_point, which creates a restore point, or roll_snapshot_timestamp, which operates on snapshots.

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 includes a warning about the operation being destructive and long-running, with an estimated 10-minute downtime. This provides context for when to use it (only when downtime is acceptable). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for non-destructive restores.

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