etabs_restore_checkpoint

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the model retains its original file name after the rollback. It does not, however, discuss irreversibility of the overwritten state.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key side effect. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 the schema plus annotations cover the confirm/destructive aspects. The description is still thin on the surrounding workflow (how to discover checkpoints, whether the current state is recoverable), but it is serviceable for a two-parameter tool.

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 100%, with both parameters documented (checkpoint source, confirm's user-approval warning), so the schema carries parameter semantics fully. The description adds no parameter-level detail, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Roll the model back to a checkpoint.' An agent can distinguish it from the sibling etabs_checkpoint (which presumably creates one), though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to etabs_list_checkpoints for obtaining valid checkpoint names (that link appears only in the schema). Nothing tells the agent what conditions make restoring appropriate versus creating a new checkpoint.

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