bridge_checkpoint

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 clearly warns that restore 'overwrites current state' and marks it with DANGER, specifies that snapshots are stored as memory.json.checkpoint.<name> alongside the live file, and clarifies that shared KV/notes are not rolled back. This is thorough disclosure for a tool with destructive potential.

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 dense but organized by operation (save/list/restore), with the danger warning placed immediately before restore instructions. The mixed-language parenthetical about shared memory is information-dense and earns its place because it prevents a wrong mental model of what rollback covers. It is slightly long relative to the simple parameter set, but no sentence is 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?

Given two simple parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides complete operational context: file locations, naming conventions, danger semantics, and exclusions. The only small gap is that the output/return value (e.g., what 'list' returns or what a successful save/restore returns) is not described, but this is not blocking for an agent deciding whether or how to invoke the tool.

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%, so the parameters are already documented there. The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema: the sentinel value 'list', a concrete naming example ('pre-promotion-batch'), and the default behavior of restore (false = save a new snapshot). These operational details make correct invocation much easier.

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 states a specific multi-action purpose ('Save / list / restore named snapshots of the bridge state') and scopes it precisely to memory.json (task queue + file locks + mailbox). It also clarifies what is NOT included (shared KV/notes externalized to ~/.agents/shared-memory/), which helps distinguish it from the many memory/shared-memory sibling 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 gives an explicit use context: 'For audit trail and rollback before risky bulk operations.' It also explains exactly how to invoke each mode (save via name, list via name='list', restore via name + restore=true), which is strong practical routing guidance. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but there are no close siblings that overlap with this snapshot functionality.

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