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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that the operation creates a new revision (non-overwriting), that callers must supply an expected current version for concurrency control, and that history survives within retention limits.

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 tightly-packed sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and its effect followed by the two caller obligations and the retention caveat.

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-read-only mutation with four undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description covers idempotency, concurrency and retention well but omits permission/auth requirements and what the caller receives back or how to reference the resulting revision.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It gives meaning to two of four parameters (expectedVersion as the expected current version, idempotencyKey as stable), but says nothing about the id format or that resumeId/checkpointId are 24-char hex IDs, and gives no hint about the version range.

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 names a specific verb (restore) and resource (checkpoint), clarifies it produces a new revision rather than overwriting, which distinguishes it from update_resume and create_resume_copy. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so it doesn't reach a 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when NOT to use it versus update_resume or create_resume_copy, and no stated prerequisites beyond the implication that the checkpoint must be 'available'. The retention note hints at context but does not route the agent between alternatives.

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