restoreCheckpoint

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds far more: it discloses that all edits since the checkpoint are discarded including the user's, that the setPointerTrack pointer is reverted, and that on the open editor project it lands as a single undoable step. These are concrete behavioral consequences an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 sentences, none wasted: the destructive scope is front-loaded, then the parameter linkage, then the undo behavior. Terse and well ordered.

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?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, the parameter provenance, cross-tool dependencies, and recoverability via undo. Combined with annotations that already carry the safety profile, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 50% and checkpointId has no schema description, but the description supplies its origin ('when createCheckpoint returned this checkpointId') and reinforces projectId semantics ('same projectId as to createCheckpoint'). It adds genuine meaning beyond the schema, though it does not restate the editor-fallback rule for omitting projectId.

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 specific verb and resource ('put the project back exactly as it was when createCheckpoint returned this checkpointId') and explicitly scopes what is discarded. It ties itself to the sibling createCheckpoint, so an agent can distinguish it from other edit tools 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?

Gives clear usage context: pass the same projectId as to createCheckpoint, and the checkpointId comes from createCheckpoint's return. It also implies the restore must follow a prior checkpoint. It does not state explicit exclusions (e.g., when not to restore), but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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