Preview abandoning an ambiguous prepared recovery checkpoint

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so description supplements by detailing the real operation's effects (deletion of recovery manifest, garbage collection) and rejection criteria. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is detailed but efficient, with key info upfront. Could be slightly more concise, but no extraneous content.

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?

Covers tool behavior and edge cases (state rejection) well. Missing parameter documentation, but given output schema exists, return values are not needed. Overall sufficient for agent understanding.

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 description does not explain the 'checkpointId' parameter. With a single required UUID parameter, the description should clarify its role (e.g., identifies which checkpoint to preview abandon).

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?

Description clearly states it previews an abandon operation for ambiguous prepared checkpoints by pinning manifests and returning a destructive proposal. It distinguishes from siblings like preview_discard and preview_commit by specifying the conflict type processed.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (ambiguous prepared-checkpoint conflicts), what states are rejected (safe-discard, machine-reconcilable exact-after), and what remains eligible (create exact-after). Also notes absence of a generic force flag.

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