restore_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the optional backup feature but does not disclose potentially destructive behavior (overwriting current state), permission requirements, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a restore operation, these are significant gaps, making transparency poor.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core function and the optional backup behavior without unnecessary detail.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context. It lacks details about return values, side effects, error conditions, and prerequisites. The tool is potentially destructive, yet the description is minimal. This is comparable to the update_drive example, which scored 2 for similar gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for the 'backup_current' parameter by explaining its purpose, which goes slightly beyond the schema. However, it doesn't add meaning for build_name or snapshot_id, which are already adequately described in the schema. The added value is modest.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('a build from a snapshot'). It also mentions the optional backup behavior, which distinguishes it from related snapshot tools like snapshot_build and list_snapshots. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—restoring a build from a snapshot. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, the context is evident from the tool name and description. Sibling tools like snapshot_build (create) and list_snapshots (list) imply this is the restore counterpart, so the usage guidance is adequate but lacks explicit exclusions.

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