app_restore_checkpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that design files are overwritten, that a reload prompt may appear, that Altium holds documents open, and precisely what prune_added destroys (files created after the checkpoint). The destructive vs. non-destructive default is spelled out explicitly.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and its risk, then the precondition, then the parameter nuance. The Args/Returns block is compact and every sentence adds information that isn't duplicated elsewhere.

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 two-parameter mutation tool, all decision-relevant information is present: risk profile, precondition, parameter semantics, and the source of the id. An output schema already exists, so the brief Returns note is a bonus rather than a necessity.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates: checkpoint_id is documented as coming from app_list_checkpoints, and prune_added's meaning, effect, and default are described in terms the bare boolean schema does not convey. No parameter is left ambiguous.

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 ('Restore the focused project's files from a checkpoint') with an explicit scope (the focused project) and immediately names what it overwrites. An agent can distinguish it from app_checkpoint and app_list_checkpoints without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear operational precondition ('Close the project in Altium ... before restoring, since Altium holds documents open') and points to app_list_checkpoints as the source of the id. It does not explicitly state when not to restore or contrast with app_checkpoint, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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