blender_checkpoint

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

Annotations only provide generic mutating and non-destructive hints. The description adds concrete behavioral detail: it creates a named marker on the undo stack and establishes a coordination contract with `blender_undo`, which is more specific than the annotations alone.

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 entire description is one well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and immediately explains its purpose, with no filler or 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 simple optional-parameter tool, the core contract is complete: what is pushed, how it is labeled, and how it is used later. A note about the return value would be nice but is not critical given the tool's low 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the role of the label by calling it a 'named marker,' but does not need to add more parameter detail.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Push a named marker onto the undo stack.' It also names the exact consequence, allowing a later `blender_undo` to return to this point, which clearly separates it from the undo/redo 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?

The intended usage is clear: create a checkpoint before work, then call `blender_undo` to return. The description does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the condition under which it is useful is evident.

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