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

Annotations only convey readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it groups file/dependency changes, no-ops when nothing changed, and clarifies the restore scope (code/config only, not DB/assets/deployments). This goes well beyond the annotations' minimal mutation hints.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and key constraints, then expands on timing, no-op behavior, and restore scope. Every sentence adds valuable information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, parameter semantics, behavioral edge cases (no-op, restore scope), and even provides a title example. No output schema exists, so explaining the return value is not required. There is no missing information an agent would need to call it correctly.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the title parameter ('short user-meaningful title describing what was accomplished') and description (optional detail). The required projectId is only implied through 'the project's Checkpoints panel,' not explicitly defined. Given that two of three params are meaningfully described and projectId is self-evident, this is a solid score.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a NAMED checkpoint — a labeled restore point'), and clearly distinguishes it from sibling file-operation tools by framing it as a checkpoint for grouping changes. It also specifies the user-facing panel, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to call: 'AFTER completing a coherent unit of work (a feature, a fix, a requested change set) — not after every file write.' It also gives a no-op condition and implies that other tools handle the actual file changes. This is strong usage guidance with a clear positive and negative directive.

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