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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description confirms the operation is file restoration, but adds nothing about what is overwritten, whether untracked/added files are removed, or whether it is reversible — the key questions for a destructive restore.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than economical — there is room for one more clause on scope or the sha requirement without becoming verbose.

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 destructive, three-parameter mutation with partial schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves the caller guessing on the required identifier source and the files_only switch. It is too thin for the complexity of the operation.

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 description coverage is only 33%: project_id is documented, but git_sha and files_only are bare. The description explains neither — notably it does not say what files_only=true excludes (e.g. restore files but not project config), which is the main behavioral choice in the call.

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?

States a specific verb (restore) and resource (project files at a git checkpoint), which is enough to distinguish it from list_checkpoints and write_file. It stops short of naming how the checkpoint is chosen or how it relates to 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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of list_checkpoints, import_project, or plain file edits, and no prerequisite like 'obtain git_sha from list_checkpoints first'. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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