screenstudio_editor_restore

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent, adding that current editor state is replaced by the saved checkpoint (an overwrite). It does not disclose permissions needed, whether the restore is reversible, or how the timeline differs from settings.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though slightly terse for a state-mutating operation.

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 one-parameter mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is adequate but omits where checkpointId comes from and what a restore affects. Enough to attempt a call, not enough to call confidently.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It weakly signals that checkpointId refers to a checkpoint created by editor_apply, but never states the parameter name, its UUID format, or how to source a valid value; the schema supplies format/pattern but not provenance.

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?

States a specific verb (put back/restore) and resource (editor timeline and settings) and ties the operation to 'an apply checkpoint', which links it to the sibling editor_apply. It distinguishes itself from generic editor siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with editor_history or editor_open.

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?

There is no guidance on when to restore versus using editor_apply, editor_history, or editor_open, nor any instruction on how to obtain a checkpointId. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'apply checkpoint'.

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