Select Checkpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only states the action of selecting an active checkpoint, but fails to mention that this changes generation behavior, may load models into memory, or could fail if the name is invalid. Side effects and error behavior are not disclosed.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The endpoint information is a useful technical detail, and the second sentence is a direct usage instruction. No wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states what the tool does and what input is needed. However, it could be more complete by explicitly noting that this changes the active model for subsequent generations, though that is strongly implied by 'active.'

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 parameter description already states 'Checkpoint name or filename (from sdnext_list_checkpoints).' The tool description simply says 'Give the checkpoint name or filename,' which adds no new meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the semantics adequately.

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 tool's action ('Select') and resource ('which checkpoint model is active'), and the endpoint reference adds specificity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sdnext_list_checkpoints, sdnext_get_checkpoint, and sdnext_unload_checkpoint by focusing on selecting/activating a checkpoint.

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 implies usage: to change the active checkpoint model. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives, such as 'use sdnext_get_checkpoint to view current' or 'use sdnext_unload_checkpoint to deactivate.' The parameter schema references sdnext_list_checkpoints, but that is not in the tool description.

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