diagram_restore

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does state that restore copies a snapshot to current and loads it, and that there is no separate checkout/rollback. That covers key semantics, but it does not explicitly warn that existing canvas content is overwritten or whether the operation is destructive/reversible, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the behavior qualifier. Every sentence adds information.

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 one-optional-parameter restore tool, the description covers the main invocation modes and the copy/load semantics. The main gap is no explicit statement about overwriting/destroying current canvas state, which matters for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema to fall back on.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that label identifies the snapshot to restore and that omitting it lists snapshots. It defines the parameter's role and optionality, which is sufficient for a single string parameter.

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 names a specific action ('Restore') and a specific resource ('labeled snapshot onto the canvas'), making the tool's core function immediately identifiable. It also distinguishes restore from list mode and clarifies the copy/load semantics, which separates it from generic canvas-editing siblings.

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?

It offers one useful usage signal: omitting label switches to listing snapshots. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over siblings like diagram_snapshot, diagram_replace, or editor_ensure, nor does it state the conditions under which restore is the appropriate operation (e.g., rollback vs. editing).

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