restore_file_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the destructive behavior: 'will replace the current file content with the snapshot content'. This goes beyond the name and clearly indicates a mutation. It doesn't mention reversibility or permissions, but the core behavioral trait is transparent.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every word earns its place. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple 2-parameter restore operation with no output schema, the description provides the essential behavioral information. It could mention reversibility or error conditions, but the core functionality is sufficiently covered for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (fileId, snapshotId). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but it also doesn't conflict. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the specific action ('Restore') and resource ('a file to a previous snapshot'), and specifies the effect ('replace the current file content with the snapshot content'). This differentiates it from sibling snapshot tools like create_file_snapshot or list_file_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 implies a clear usage context: when you need to revert a file to a previous version, this is the tool to use. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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