blender_restore_checkpoint

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

Annotations say destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds critical context: 'Replaces ALL current scene objects' and details about checkpoint lifecycle (saved before every blender_boolean and blender_execute_code call). This goes beyond annotations to explain the exact destructive scope and stateful 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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: a clear one-line purpose, the mechanism, the destructive scope, and the critical temporal warning. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently structured without redundancy.

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 rollback tool with zero parameters, the description fully covers the key context: what it does, when to use it, what it replaces, and the overwrite risk. The output schema exists but doesn't need return-value explanation. This is complete for its complexity.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It also doesn't mention params, which is appropriate.

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 the verb and resource: 'Restore the scene from the auto-saved checkpoint' and characterizes it as 'the undo button for a destroyed mesh.' It explicitly ties to blender_boolean and blender_execute_code, distinguishing it from sibling tools like blender_clear_scene and blender_execute_code.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use immediately after a DEGENERATE RESULT warning or a botched edit.' It also gives a crucial when-not-to-use warning: 'a subsequent mutating call overwrites the checkpoint with the broken state,' implying the tool must be the next call after a mutation. This is clear context and exclusion.

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