create_checkpoint

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: the snapshot is immutable, the tool does not reload the editor, snapshotting is asynchronous, and requests may time out while the checkpoint may still complete. It also describes the response shape and the safe verification strategy. No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, return value, side-effect context, async/timeout behavior, and the key exclusion. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains tight despite covering several important operational caveats.

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 of this complexity, the description covers the essential operational facts: what is captured, the return shape in the absence of an output schema, the non-reloading behavior, the asynchronous/timeout risk, how to confirm completion, and the main alternative. The schema covers the parameter details, so nothing critical is missing.

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 the schema already fully documents description and branchId. The description reinforces that the snapshot covers the current branch and includes scenes/assets/settings, but it does not add substantial new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action (create) and resource (checkpoint, an immutable snapshot of the current branch's scenes/assets/settings), and distinguishes it from the rollback sibling by explicitly pointing to restore_checkpoint. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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 clear usage context: create checkpoints to capture a recoverable state, and explicitly says when NOT to use it ('to roll back to a checkpoint, use restore_checkpoint'). It also provides guidance for the asynchronous case with a confirmation path: 'confirm with list_checkpoints'.

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