Restore Checkpoint

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

The annotations only provide destructiveHint: true, but the description goes far beyond that by detailing the exact consequences: discarding all changes and uncommitted edits, preserving the file name, leaving the project unsaved, reassigning memory layer feature ids, handling missing layers as unavailable, and affecting export_session behavior. This substantially enriches the agent's understanding of the operation.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and consequence, then expands with relevant secondary effects. Every sentence adds distinct information—file name, unsaved state, memory layers, unavailable layers, export_session. No fluff or repetition; the structure is clear and logically ordered.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description mentions the 'unavailable_layers' field, giving a hint about the response shape. It covers destructive behavior, side effects on memory layers, missing layers, and subsequent export behavior. For a restore operation, this is a thorough and sufficient description, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema defines a single parameter, checkpoint_id, with no description (0% schema coverage). The tool description does not explicitly explain checkpoint_id, but its meaning is obvious from the tool name and description context. It provides no additional detail about format or where to obtain the id. Given the low schema coverage, the description could have been more explicit, but the parameter is self-evident enough for a minimal 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?

The description states a clear verb-resource pair ('Put the project back as it was at a checkpoint') and specifies the exact scope of the action: discarding every change since the checkpoint and uncommitted edits. It also mentions distinctive outcomes (file name kept, unsaved, memory layer new ids, unavailable layers listed) that set it apart from siblings like undo_edits or rollback_edits.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like undo_edits, rollback_edits, or create_checkpoint. It does not state conditions for selection or when not to use it. The usage context is only implied through the description of the action.

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