Restore KiCad Checkpoint

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states the action (restore) and scope (one exact file by id) but does not mention consequences such as overwriting the target file, whether it's reversible, required permissions, or what the tool returns. 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 description is one clear sentence followed by a pointer to /app/docs/SKILL.md. The main sentence is efficient and front-loaded, and the skill pointer is brief. Not every word earns its place, but it's well-structured.

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 two well-documented parameters and a clear purpose; the description is minimally sufficient for an agent to identify inputs and what action is taken. However, without annotations or an output schema, it fails to clarify behavioral effects or return values, leaving uncertainty for a mutating operation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without extra param info. The description adds little beyond the schema: 'by id' mirrors the schema's 'Checkpoint id from list_checkpoints,' and 'one exact file checkpoint' adds slight emphasis but no new semantic detail.

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 and resource: 'Restore one exact file checkpoint by id.' This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools like list_checkpoints and save_checkpoint. The qualifier 'exact' adds precision.

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 the tool is used to restore a single, specific checkpoint identified by an id, which sets clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the uniqueness of restore among siblings and the 'by id' qualifier give sufficient guidance.

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