production.restore_checkpoint

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context that apply opens a new working copy, but it does not explain what existing state is replaced, whether the checkpoint must already exist, or what operation_id controls.

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 a single compact sentence with the default behavior front-loaded. The phrasing is terse and slightly awkward ('apply saves recovery checkpoint'), but there is no wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the destructive/non-idempotent profile. Still, for a destructive restore operation with three parameters, the description omits what the new working copy replaces and the purpose of operation_id.

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 indirectly explains dry_run ('Plan by default' / 'apply') and checkpoint ('recovery checkpoint'), but operation_id is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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 says what happens in plan mode versus apply mode and identifies the resulting artifact ('opens a new working copy'). It is clear about the operation's effect, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from create_checkpoint or other checkpoint-related siblings.

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?

It states that the default is to plan, which implies when dry_run is active, and that apply is the action mode. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose restore_checkpoint over create_checkpoint or cleanup_artifacts, nor when not to apply.

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