restore_project_snapshot

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Restore entire project,' which implies overwriting but does not mention irreversible changes, required permissions, or whether the restore can be undone. This insufficient disclosure for a mutation tool merits a 2.

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 sentence of 8 words: 'Restore entire project to a specific snapshot state.' It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, achieving a 5.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. However, as a project-level mutation, it lacks context about consequences, such as whether current changes are lost or if it creates a new history entry. This is a gap, but the simplicity of the tool keeps it at a 3.

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 provides a 100% description of the single parameter snapshotId. The description adds no new information beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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, 'Restore entire project to a specific snapshot state.' The verb 'Restore' is specific, and 'entire project' clearly scopes the operation to project-level, distinguishing it from sibling restore_file_snapshot. This matches a 5 for purpose clarity.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus restore_file_snapshot or rollback_to_version. It only implies project-level use via 'entire project,' but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions. This is implied usage, so a 3.

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