etabs_checkpoint

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

Annotations only declare it as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds real context the annotations lack: it saves the model and keeps a labeled copy as a restore point, and that it requires an already-saved model. It doesn't cover failure behavior or whether labels must be unique, but it strengthens an otherwise sparse disclosure.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences: the action first, then the restore pairing and prerequisite. No wasted text; the analogy earns its place by conveying intent.

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 one-param tool with an output schema and clear annotations, this is nearly complete: what it does, how it's paired, and the prerequisite. Minor gap: it doesn't state what happens if the model is unsaved or if the label collides.

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?

Single param 'label' with 100% schema coverage including pattern and example. Description adds nothing about the label beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (save + copy as named checkpoint) and resource (model), with a concrete analogy ('an undo point before risky edits') that pins down intent and distinguishes it from etabs_save_model and etabs_restore_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?

Explains purpose (undo point before risky edits) and names the paired tool etabs_restore_checkpoint. It also states the prerequisite 'Needs a saved model.' It does not explicitly say when to prefer etabs_save_model instead, but the usage context is clear.

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