Hedgehog

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Restores the full state from the checkpoint snapshot' clarifies the replacement nature of the operation. However, lacks disclosure on reversibility, whether current uncheckpointed state is permanently lost, or permission requirements for this destructive-by-replacement action.

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 plus Args block. Front-loaded with the action statement, followed by behavioral details, then parameters. Slightly awkward indentation in the Args section, but no wasted sentences. Appropriate length for a 2-parameter tool with output schema.

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?

Given existence of output schema, description correctly omits return value details. However, for a state-mutating operation (rollback), missing safety context and sibling differentiation keeps this from being fully complete. Adequate baseline coverage for the parameter count but lacks operational warnings appropriate for restoration operations.

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%, requiring description to compensate. The Args section provides semantic meaning for both parameters: 'name' is the 'Spike name' and 'checkpoint_id' is the 'Checkpoint ID to restore from'. This successfully maps the technical parameters to their domain concepts, though 'Spike name' could elaborate on whether this is the unique identifier.

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 'Rollback' + resource 'spike' + scope 'to a previous checkpoint' clearly identifies the operation. Distinct from siblings like spike_checkpoint (create), spike_archive (archive), or spike_delete (remove) by focusing on restoration to a prior state.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., spike_archive vs rollback), nor prerequisites mentioned (checkpoint must exist first). The word 'Rollback' implies usage context but lacks explicit when/when-not direction.

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