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

Annotations mark it idempotent and destructive; the description goes beyond that by specifying exactly what is destroyed — a different checkpoint replaces the previous one and it is not kept — and confirms the no-publish/no-live-change guarantee. This is the kind of overwrite semantics an agent must know before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its bounds, then use conditions, then parameters and overwrite behavior. Dense but every clause carries information; only the work_context field enumeration mildly duplicates the 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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation's irreversibility and use triggers. It is slightly thin on the mechanics of recovering a checkpoint later and says nothing about the undocumented development_token, a minor gap for a four-parameter tool.

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 75% and the schema already documents every work_context field verbatim, so most of the description's parameter recital is redundant. The one genuine addition is linking base_version to the value returned by get_app_context (0 for an unpublished reservation), which the schema only partially conveys.

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 and resource (saves unfinished work / checkpoint) and immediately bounds scope with 'without publishing or changing the live app,' which cleanly separates it from the publish sibling. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 names two triggering situations: work continuing across turns after reserving an app, and a session ending with unfinished changes. It does not name a sibling alternative by name (e.g. save_record or publish), so routing is inferred rather than spelled out, but the conditions are clear.

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