createCheckpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Changes nothing' and adds the return value (checkpointId) plus the intended pairing with restoreCheckpoint. It does not cover limits (how many checkpoints can exist, lifetime, whether it persists across sessions), so it stops short of a 5 but is consistent and informative.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and return value, then the non-mutation guarantee, then the workflow reason.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return value (checkpointId). Combined with the schema documenting projectId and annotations covering safety, an agent has what it needs, though checkpoint retention/scope limits remain unstated.

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 100% and the single projectId parameter is already fully documented there, so the description adds nothing about parameter syntax or optionality. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource (save project state, return checkpointId) and explicitly names the paired sibling restoreCheckpoint, so an agent can distinguish it from the many mutation tools in the sibling list without opening a schema.

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?

States exactly when to call it ('before a series of edits') and why ('so restoreCheckpoint can revert all of them in one step'), which names the alternative tool and the condition that chains them.

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