Delete checkpoint

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the irreversible nature is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new lifecycle context — that closing an image also discards its checkpoints — but says nothing about behavior on an invalid or already-freed checkpoint id, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

Two very short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is slightly tangential to invoking this tool (it describes image closing), but it is short enough to earn its place as context.

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?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations that carry the safety profile, the description covers what an agent needs to call it. Only failure-mode behavior is left unstated, which is a minor gap for a tool of this complexity.

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% and the single parameter is documented in the schema as a checkpoint id from gimp_create_checkpoint. The description adds no format, validity, or lookup guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a concrete verb and object — 'Free a checkpoint's memory' — which clearly identifies this as the deletion counterpart to gimp_create_checkpoint and gimp_restore_checkpoint. It never uses the word 'delete' even though the tool name does, so the mapping is inferred rather than stated, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call this when you want to reclaim a checkpoint's memory. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over gimp_restore_checkpoint (revert state) or gimp_close_image, and no note that restoring is impossible after freeing. The second sentence hints at an alternative but does not route the agent.

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