restore_checkpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action of restoring state, which implies a mutation, but does not mention side effects, reversibility, or permissions. The only behavioral hint is the 'empty_results' reason, which is more parameter-specific than a behavioral trait. This is a significant gap for a state-changing 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 a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action first and then adds the conditional parameter detail. It earns its place, though it is perhaps too brief to meet the completeness expected for the tool.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is severely incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations. It fails to explain what a checkpoint is, how to obtain one, the role of 'expected_version', or any workflow context. An agent cannot reliably know how to invoke this tool correctly beyond the vague restore action.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It only explains the special case for 'reason' (use 'empty_results' on zero results), but does not describe 'session_id', 'checkpoint', or 'expected_version'. This leaves most parameters undefined, providing minimal semantic value 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?

States a clear purpose: restoring the complete state before a filtering operation. The verb 'restore' and resource 'checkpoint' are specific, and it's distinguishable from siblings like 'reset_filter' in that it restores a prior snapshot rather than just clearing selections. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, which would push it to 5.

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?

Provides a conditional guideline for the 'reason' parameter when zero results occur, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'reset_filter' or 'close_search_session'. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned, leaving the tool selection context largely implicit.

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