restore_checkpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral consequences, and it does so strongly: 'unsaved changes are lost' and 'open file is the checkpoint copy' clearly warn about destructive and redirecting behavior. It also explains the necessary recovery step, saving to the returned original_path, which is critical for avoiding further file divergence.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and the key warning, and the second gives the necessary post-restore workflow. There is no filler or repetition of already-structured schema information.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action, the data-loss consequence, and the post-condition of the open file. It is nearly complete, but tying `name` to checkpoint listing would fully remove ambiguity about the required input.

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 0%, so the description needed to clarify the `name` parameter, but it never says where the name comes from, whether it is a checkpoint ID or label, or that it should come from list_checkpoints/save_checkpoint. The only contextual hint is 'Reopen a checkpoint,' which provides minimal meaning for this single string parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Reopen a checkpoint') and immediately states the main side effect ('replacing the current scene'). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like list_checkpoints and save_checkpoint.

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 makes the tool's context clear: restoring an earlier checkpoint over the current scene, with unsaved changes lost. It also provides a concrete follow-up instruction to save via save_project to the original_path. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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