Restore from Checkpoint

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavior: it overwrites current files and creates an automatic backup checkpoint before restoring. This goes beyond annotations by disclosing the safety net, though it doesn't detail permissions or error states.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second explains the risk (overwrite), and the third mentions the safety feature. Efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity (3 params, 1 required), the description covers the tool's effect (restore, overwrite, backup). It might lack detail on what 'spec artifacts' include, but sibling context and overall clarity make it sufficient.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It mentions restoring from checkpoint which is the purpose, but no extra parameter-level detail.

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 uses the specific verb 'restores' with the resource 'spec artifacts to a previous checkpoint snapshot', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sdd_checkpoint (create) and sdd_list_checkpoints (list). It also explains overwriting and automatic backup, leaving no ambiguity.

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 implicitly states when to use (restore from checkpoint) by describing the action, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use. The automatic backup mention provides a safety guideline, but explicit exclusion of other scenarios is missing.

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