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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious nuance: the current state is snapshotted first so the restore is reversible, working files are overwritten, and the live site is unaffected until a deploy. That is exactly the extra context structured fields cannot convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the safety caveat, then the deployment scope. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the annotations.

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 single-param tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects, reversibility, and blast radius well. It doesn't say what the call returns (e.g. a snapshot/restore identifier) or how long the operation takes, which is a minor gap.

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% and the single parameter already documents its source ('from list_checkpoints'), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond it — baseline 3.

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 ('Restore a project's files to a checkpoint') so the action is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling restore_project, which an agent could plausibly confuse with checkpoint restoration, so it falls short of 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?

Gives clear operational context — confirm with the user, and a published site won't change until redeploy — which tells the agent how to behave before invoking. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. delete_checkpoint for discarding, restore_project for whole-project recovery) or stating when not to use it.

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