we_project_restore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the restore refuses concurrent changes (optimistic concurrency) and creates another checkpoint for undo, clarifying reversibility and failure behavior.

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 with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the most important behavioral traits (concurrency refusal and undo checkpoint).

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers concurrency and reversibility. It omits explicit parameter explanations, but no essential calling information appears missing given the structured data available.

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 0% for all three required parameters. The description hints that 'checkpoint' maps to checkpointId and that concurrency refusal relates to expectedRevision, but it does not explicitly document any parameter's role, format, or constraints, leaving most semantics to be inferred.

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 ('Restore') and resource ('checkpoint belonging to this managed project'), making the core operation immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like we_project_apply or we_project_validate, but no sibling shares its restore-checkpoint purpose.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: restore a checkpoint for this project. The phrase 'refusing concurrent changes' signals a precondition (no concurrent edits), but the description never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, leaving routing to inference.

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