vcs_restore_checkpoint

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

The annotation declares destructiveHint=true, which already signals destructiveness. The description adds only the scope (project files from a checkpoint) but fails to disclose that current files will be overwritten, uncommitted changes may be lost, or whether the restore is a hard reset. This goes beyond the annotation's simple destructiveness flag in terms of operational risk awareness.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant content. It states the action, target, and source in nine words, earning its place without waste.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description lacks crucial behavioral details for a destructive operation. It doesn't explain what happens to the current project state, whether the restore is selective or a full reset, or if there are safeguards such as requiring a clean working directory. For a potentially risky operation, this is insufficient.

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?

The schema has a single 'commit_hash' parameter with 0% coverage beyond its title. The description mentions 'a previous checkpoint commit,' hinting at the parameter's origin, but does not explain how to obtain the hash, its format, or that it must reference a checkpoint created by vcs_commit_checkpoint. The parameter name is self-descriptive, but the description adds no explicit guidance.

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 uses the specific verb 'restore' with 'project files' and identifies the source as 'a previous checkpoint commit,' clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like vcs_commit_checkpoint (create), vcs_list_checkpoints (list), and vcs_diff_with_checkpoint (diff). It is concise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when reverting to a previous state but does not explicitly mention alternatives or prerequisites. For example, it doesn't advise using vcs_list_checkpoints to find a commit_hash or contrast with vcs_diff_with_checkpoint. The usage context is clear but not explicitly guided.

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