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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context: 'State is agent-authored, not verified facts' and the need for expected_version to prevent lost updates. These go beyond the annotation and inform the agent about data quality and concurrency behavior.

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 two sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clean and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details, return behavior, and usage context, leaving the agent to infer critical information.

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 must compensate. It only explains expected_version's purpose; it does not explain name, state, artifact_ids, or action semantics. For a 5-parameter tool with a nested object, this is insufficient.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Save or resume task checkpoints.' It distinguishes the tool's core function from generic operations and is not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the checkpoint domain is specific enough.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a requirement for saving (expected_version) but that is a parameter constraint, not a usage guideline. There are no references to sibling tools or conditions for selecting this tool over others.

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