oc_checkpoint

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description discloses basic behaviors (save persists, delete cleans up) but lacks details on failure modes, overwrite behavior, or permanence of delete. More context would improve transparency.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose, then lists actions and their uses. It is concise with no unnecessary words, earning its place efficiently.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers action selection but does not explain return values, error states, or side effects. Adequate for basic use but lacking completeness for complex scenarios.

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% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds minor value, e.g., 'Omit to use latest/current checkpoint' for checkpointId and 'required for save' for taskDescription, but largely reiterates schema info. Baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Save, load, list, or delete automation checkpoints for long-running session continuity.' It specifies the resource (automation checkpoints) and the actions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like oc_session_resume or oc_context_export.

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 provides explicit guidance for each action: 'Use "save" to persist current task state, "list" to inspect the bounded checkpoint timeline, "load" to restore metadata after context compaction, and "delete" to clean up.' This helps agents choose the correct action, though it does not exclude alternatives when not to use.

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