restore_checkpoint

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses key behavioral traits: history is preserved, the editor reloads, the tool waits for reconnection, and it returns vcs_status. These details meaningfully inform the agent about side effects and execution behavior beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 three sentences long, with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds crucial behavioral side-effects and an explicit exclusion, each sentence earning its place.

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 two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the return value (vcs_status), the reload side-effect, the history-preservation semantics, and the routing to the hard reset sibling. This is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and understand the tool's behavior correctly.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, including the source of checkpointId and the default behavior of branchId. The description does not add additional parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Restore (soft revert) the current branch's working state to a checkpoint') and immediately distinguishes itself from the hard-reset sibling, so the agent knows 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?

The description explicitly states when NOT to use the tool and names the correct alternative: 'to permanently erase later checkpoints (use hard_reset_checkpoint).' This gives the agent a clear decision rule for choosing between restore_checkpoint and hard_reset_checkpoint.

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