Save a checkpoint

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: re-saving an existing name moves the checkpoint to the current state (overwrite semantics), and 'Checkpoints never change any facts' reassures the agent that no domain data is mutated. That is meaningful disclosure the annotations do not provide.

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 tight sentences: usage cue first, then overwrite semantics, then a side-effect disclaimer. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

No output schema is needed since the save operation returns little, annotations cover the safety profile, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description fills the remaining gaps (when to call, overwrite behavior, no fact mutation), so an agent has everything required to invoke it correctly.

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% and the schema already defines the name format and length limit, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example name ('before-import') that conveys naming conventions beyond the raw schema constraint, lifting it slightly.

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 action (naming/saving the current state as a checkpoint) with a concrete example ('before-import'), so an agent knows what the tool produces. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like undo_changes or list_changes, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Use before a risky job, such as an import.' That is a clear when-to-use context. It does not state when-not to use it or name an alternative sibling, which keeps it short of a 5.

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