memory_checkout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool overwrites the current handoff state and that no data is lost (version number moves forward). This adequately informs the agent of the behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core action, the second provides an analogy and critical behavioral note. No 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 description provides enough context for a revert tool, including the prerequisite and behavior. No output schema exists, but the return value is not essential for invocation. Slight gap: could mention the version increment explicitly, but it's implied by 'version number moves forward'.

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 describes both parameters, and the description adds valuable context: target_version should be obtained from memory_history. This goes beyond the schema's description, improving clarity.

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 restores a project's memory to a past version, using an analogy to Git revert. It distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_history by explicitly referencing it as a prerequisite.

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 advises calling memory_history first to find the correct target_version, providing clear usage context. While it does not explicitly list when not to use it, the guidance is sufficient for an AI agent.

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