Checkpoint the file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds useful context about creating a restore point versus relying on undos, but it does not disclose what the destructive aspect might involve or what happens to existing version-history entries. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Saves a named point...') and then provides a practical usage rationale without repeating schema details or annotation information.

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 simple two-parameter write tool, the description covers the core purpose and when to use it. However, it leaves the 'description' parameter unexplained and does not mention return behavior. Since there is no output schema, these gaps make the definition minimally viable rather than complete.

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 only 50%. The 'title' parameter is explained in the schema as 'What this checkpoint is for,' but the 'description' parameter has no schema documentation and the tool description adds nothing about it. The description therefore fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 and resource: 'Saves a named point in the file’s version history.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like figma_list_saved, figma_set_fill, or figma_delete_node, and the title 'Checkpoint the file' reinforces the intent.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to call it: 'before a run that will change several things...' and explains the benefit of a single fallback point. It does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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