Checkpoint Unpublish

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds useful specificity that the operation revokes public visibility rather than destroying the checkpoint, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior if the checkpoint was never published, or reversibility.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the idempotency annotation covers repeat invocation. Still, for a mutation tool the definition is thin on preconditions (does it error if the checkpoint is already private?) and on the tinker_path parameter, which is undocumented everywhere.

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%, so the single parameter tinker_path is documented nowhere. The description gestures at 'this exact checkpoint' but gives no format, origin, or valid-value guidance for the path, leaving the agent to guess how to construct it.

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 ('Remove public access ... checkpoint'), which is far more precise than a generic 'unpublish'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like checkpoint_delete or checkpoint_set_ttl, so the agent must infer the boundary from the wording alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The phrase 'this exact checkpoint' hints at scope but never says when an agent should unpublish versus delete, set a TTL, or simply leave the checkpoint private.

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