web_checkpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that restore/delete are outside MCP scope. It still omits key mutation traits: whether saving overwrites an existing label, what happens on a revision mismatch, and whether the operation is reversible from the MCP side.

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 filler; the primary action is front-loaded and the limitation follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and the tool boundary but leaves expected_rev's role and failure behavior unexplained, which is the main gap an agent would hit in practice.

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 only 50% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. 'label' is undocumented and 'expected_rev' is only labeled 'Current revision' in the schema, so the important optimistic-concurrency semantics of expected_rev are never explained anywhere.

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 ('Save a named checkpoint of the current working copy'), which is unambiguous. It does not differentiate against siblings like web_timeline or web_preview that might also relate to versioning, but the action itself is clear.

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 second sentence tells the agent that restore and delete are NOT available here and require a dashboard session, which is useful scoping. However, it never says when to create a checkpoint or in what workflow context, so usage selection against siblings is only implied.

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