restore_checkpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'restore over', implying overwriting the file, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., irreversible changes), required permissions, or what happens to the current state. This lack of behavioral detail leaves the agent guessing about the tool's impact.

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 two sentences—first defines the main action, second clarifies the optional parameter. No redundancy, no wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or whether the operation is destructive. Additional context would improve completeness for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters described adequately. The description's second sentence aligns with the schema's optional parameter note but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Restore a checkpoint') and the resource ('.tldr file'), with the additional detail that omitting the checkpoint restores the most recent. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like save_checkpoint and list_checkpoints.

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?

The description implies usage when wanting to revert to a checkpoint, but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use this tool. It does not mention siblings or conditions for use.

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