restore_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Restore' implies overwriting the current canvas, but the description does not explicitly state that current content will be replaced, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the named snapshot does not exist. This is a significant gap for a potentially destructive mutation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action ('Restore the canvas') and includes the key qualifier ('from a previously saved named snapshot'). There is zero redundant information, making it concise and efficiently scannable.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits critical side effects (e.g., overwriting current canvas state, potential data loss) and does not mention error conditions (e.g., if the snapshot doesn't exist). A simple but complete description should at least note that the current canvas will be replaced.

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 only defines a required string parameter 'name' with 0% schema description coverage. The description's phrase 'previously saved named snapshot' adds the meaning that the 'name' parameter identifies the snapshot to restore, providing some context beyond the bare schema. However, it does not clarify format, constraints, or behavior when the name is invalid, leaving room for improvement.

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 a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('the canvas') from a 'previously saved named snapshot', which distinguishes it from siblings like snapshot_scene (which saves) and clear_canvas (which clears). However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or contrast with other restoration/import tools, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'previously saved named snapshot' but does not reference the snapshots created by snapshot_scene or explain when restore_snapshot is preferable to import_scene. There are no exclusions or context cues.

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