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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it auto-snapshots the current preset as a checkpoint first (safety/reversibility), enforces optimistic concurrency via exact revision, and that both participants see the restored state (shared/collaborative). These details exceed the destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent flags provided.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then preconditions, then collaborative effect. Every sentence carries distinct information with no waste.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers concurrency and safety well but leaves token/sessionId semantics and any response shape unaddressed. Adequate but with clear parameter 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 0%, so the description must carry param meaning. It clarifies baseRevision ('exact current revision') and checkpointId (the checkpoint to restore), but says nothing about token (auth credential) or sessionId, leaving two of four required parameters unexplained.

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+resource: 'Restore a checkpoint as a new shared edit.' An agent can tell this is a checkpoint-restore operation. It doesn't explicitly name siblings like checkpoint_session or edit_session, so no explicit differentiation, but 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?

Provides a clear precondition: 'Requires the exact current revision,' which tells the agent when this call will succeed. However, it does not state when to prefer restore over edit_session or when-not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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