push_undo_checkpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key non-obvious consequence: "clears redo." That is exactly the kind of destructive side effect an agent needs. It stops short of describing what the call returns or whether staging edits inside a transaction differs, which keeps it from being complete.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the side effect parenthesized immediately where it is relevant. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output, no-annotation tool, the description covers purpose, timing, and the redo-clearing side effect, which is enough to call it correctly. It leaves the relationship to the transaction tools (begin/commit/rollback) unstated, a minor gap given how many similar lifecycle tools sit alongside it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level information is missing or needed.

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 ("Record the current scene state on the undo stack") and even names the side effect. It is clearly distinguishable from undo/redo in intent, but it never names or contrasts with the closely related transaction tools (begin_transaction/commit_transaction/rollback_transaction), so differentiation relies on the sibling names rather than the description.

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?

"Call before a batch of edits you want to revert in one step" gives a concrete when-to-use condition. It offers no when-not guidance and does not mention the alternative (begin_transaction) that an agent might otherwise pick, so routing is clear but not fully resolved.

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