create_checkpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses useful constraints: the limited set of properties captured, inability to restore deleted nodes or structural changes, and loss of state on plugin UI reload. It omits side effects (whether creating a checkpoint mutates document state) and any return value information.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the snapshot action and property list, then immediately follows with limitations. The property list is long but earns its place by defining scope, and there is no filler.

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 gives strong behavioral context for a checkpoint tool but leaves important gaps: the optional label parameter is unexplained, and with no output schema the return value or checkpoint identifier is not described. It is adequate for basic invocation but incomplete for fully informed use.

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%. The description only indirectly clarifies nodeIds ('on the given nodes') and completely omits the optional 'label' parameter, so it does not compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Snapshot a handful of common mutable properties' on 'the given nodes.' It also names the exact property categories and distinguishes itself from restore_checkpoint and true undo, so an agent can identify its purpose without opening another tool.

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?

It clearly links usage to later restoration with restore_checkpoint and explicitly states when not to rely on it: 'NOT true undo: it cannot restore a deleted node or undo structural changes.' However, it does not explicitly describe the workflow condition (e.g., create before applying batch edits) or name undo/redo as the alternative for structural changes.

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