kuma_kuma_safety

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful traits such as the pairing of checkpoint+rollback_label as 'the one rollback mechanism' and implies state mutation/restore, but it never states permissions required, whether rollback destroys uncommitted work, or that guard/verify involve caching and rate limiting (only hinted at in the schema's 'force' description).

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 critical scoping rule ('task boundaries, not on every edit') is front-loaded, and the action list is compact and scannable. It is slightly redundant with the action enum descriptions in the schema, but there is no filler.

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 an 11-parameter, multi-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action semantics adequately but says nothing about what verify, cost, or guard return, nor about the snapshot/restore lifecycle details an agent would need. It is minimum-viable rather than complete.

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%, and the action enum descriptions already spell out each action, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the action meanings largely in parallel with the schema and adds only the workflow relationship (checkpoint pairs with rollback_label); it does not clarify the other nine parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opening line names the domain ('Safety & verification') and the CORE ACTIONS block enumerates five concrete operations with their roles, so an agent knows this is a safety/verification toolkit. It is clear on what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'kuma_safety' or explains why two near-identically-named safety tools exist.

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?

Explicit timing guidance is given ('Use at task boundaries, not on every edit') plus per-action triggers ('before risky work', 'after edits', 'snapshot before risky work'). It also implicitly excludes overuse. What is missing is any routing advice versus the sibling tools, but the when-to-use guidance itself is strong.

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