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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true; the description earns credit by explaining why and what is actually affected: saving an existing name 'moves it to the current state' (i.e. the prior checkpoint is overwritten), while facts remain untouched. It does not cover permissions, workspace scoping rules, or side effects on change history, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and no wasted preamble. The final sentence about facts is slightly redundant given the earlier overwrite statement, but it preempts a misreading of destructiveHint.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers when to call, what it does to existing state, and how to restore from it. It omits any note on what is returned (e.g. the saved checkpoint name) or on how checkpoints interact with workspace scoping.

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 value by demonstrating the name convention ('before-import') and by linking the name to the later 'checkpoint' argument of undo_changes, which the schema alone does not convey. The optional workspace parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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 ('name the current state'), gives a concrete example ('before-import'), and explicitly contrasts its non-effect with fact mutation ('never changes any facts'). An agent can distinguish it from record_fact/correct_fact/retract_fact purely from the text.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('before a risky job, such as an import') and names the exact follow-up path ('call undo_changes with checkpoint set to this name'), so restore flow is unambiguous. This is explicit when-to-use plus the alternative tool, not implied guidance.

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