penpot_discard_checkpoint

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool removes in-memory entry and optionally a file on disk based on configuration, but does not mention permanence, authorization, or side effects like irreversibility.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. First sentence states the core action and condition, second adds implementation details. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simple discard tool, the description covers the action and data removal locations. However, it lacks error handling, return value information (no output schema), and fails to clarify if checkpointId is a required path or ID. Could be more complete given no annotations.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter checkpointId. The description only says it references a checkpoint from penpot_checkpoint, failing to specify format (e.g., UUID), how to obtain it, or validation rules beyond minLength 1.

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 discards (frees) a checkpoint without restoring it, and contrasts with penpot_checkpoint and penpot_restore_checkpoint. It specifies the action on both in-memory and disk entries, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 says 'once it is no longer needed,' implying when to use, but does not explicitly list when not to use or compare with alternatives like penpot_restore_checkpoint. No guidance on prerequisites or context is provided.

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