create_checkpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states the operation is side-effecting (class B), writes under '.viberevert/checkpoints/', and explains the name-uniqueness lock behavior. It also discloses the return values (id and timestamp). This is a high level of transparency for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then quickly covers returns, side effects, and conditional behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. The structure is logical: purpose → output → side effect → conditional nuance.

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?

For a tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the primary action, the return format (id and timestamp), the location of side effects (checkpoint directory), and the lock behavior under a specific condition. No critical information is missing, such as error cases or prerequisites, which are not needed given the simplicity of the operation.

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?

The input schema has no description for the 'name' parameter (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining that supplying 'name' triggers the D22 name-uniqueness lock, implying that 'name' is the checkpoint name and affects uniqueness. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's pattern and maxLength constraints, though it could be more explicit about the checkpoint naming purpose.

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 verb ('Create'), the resource ('a standalone VibeRevert checkpoint'), and the specific action ('capturing the current working tree state'). It also mentions the returned values (checkpoint id and creation timestamp), making the purpose unambiguous. The term 'standalone' differentiates it from potential sibling operations like start_session or check_repo, though none are directly similar.

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 provides clear context on usage: it's a side-effecting operation (class B) that writes a checkpoint directory, and it details the conditional lock behavior when 'name' is supplied. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, the sibling tools are distinct and no direct alternative exists. The lock condition effectively guides parameter usage (when to supply 'name' and when not).

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