session_restore

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

Goes well past destructiveHint=true by specifying exactly what is destroyed (untracked files anywhere under the workspace), that it is permanent and unprompted, what is reverted (tracked files), and what it explicitly does NOT cover (DB writes, network calls, installs). This is the rare case where the description meaningfully upgrades the annotation.

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, front-loaded with the DESTRUCTIVE marker, then the action, then the blast radius and limits. No filler, and the most decision-critical fact (permanent deletion without prompt) is placed before the caveats.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, default, destruction scope, and side-effect limits, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It omits any statement of return value or failure conditions (e.g. unknown checkpoint_id, inactive session), which would close the last gap.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 'omit to restore the most recent' default. The description restates that default without adding format, validity, or lookup details, so the schema carries the load and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 — restoring a session's workspace to a checkpoint — with the scope ('remote session's workspace') and default behavior spelled out. The restore-vs-create contrast with sibling session_checkpoint is unambiguous from the verb alone, so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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 a concrete selection rule for the ambiguous case ('omit checkpoint_id to restore the most recent') and makes the destructive context explicit so the agent knows this is not a routine read. It never names an alternative tool or states a precondition (e.g. session must be active), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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