ck_checkpoint_create

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds that it captures specific data, but does not disclose side effects or whether it modifies state beyond creating a checkpoint. With annotations, the description adds some context but could be more transparent about actions.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and captured elements. It is front-loaded and concise, though it could be slightly clearer about the exact action.

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?

Given 5 parameters, output schema, and siblings, the description is adequate but not exhaustive. It explains what the checkpoint captures and its purpose, but lacks details on when to create versus list or restore, and does not cover output semantics.

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 80%; the description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides for parameters. It does not elaborate on how each parameter relates to the checkpoint creation, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool creates a workspace checkpoint and specifies what it captures (git state, workspace context, metadata) and its purpose (migration or rollback). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like ck_checkpoint_list and ck_checkpoint_restore.

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 for migration or rollback but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ck_checkpoint_list or ck_checkpoint_restore. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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