update_checkpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only lists updatable fields and does not mention side effects like dependency cycle validation, permission requirements, or that updating overwrites existing values. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 entire description is one focused sentence, front-loading the verb and resource and avoiding any wasted words.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema. The description gives a useful overview but lacks behavioral context such as validation rules (though these partially appear in the schema). For a mutation tool, a bit more context would be needed to make it self-contained.

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 input schema already documents all 8 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds only minimal grouping (e.g., 'git references' covers three URL params). The baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Update') and identifies the resource ('checkpoint') plus the specific fields (title, description, dependencies, git refs), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_checkpoint, complete_checkpoint, and delete_checkpoint.

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?

While the description clearly indicates this tool updates existing checkpoints, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives (e.g., add_checkpoint) or mention any preconditions. The context of sibling tool names helps, but the description itself lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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