penpot_restore_checkpoint

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

Without annotations, description fully discloses behavior: checkpoint not consumed, can be restored repeatedly, throws on unknown id, details corrective actions for shapes. Very transparent.

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?

Well-structured with main purpose first, then mechanism, then edge cases. Slightly long but every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers both page-level and file-level checkpoints, mentions related tools, explains error condition. Complete for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Single parameter checkpointId has no schema description, but description adds meaning: it is a valid checkpoint id, and explains consequences of unknown id. Compensates for 0% schema coverage.

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 undoes shape changes since a checkpoint, with specific verb 'undo' and resource 'shape changes', and distinguishes it from siblings like penpot_discard_checkpoint and penpot_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?

Provides context for when to use (undo shape changes) and mentions alternatives (discard checkpoint) and prerequisites (checkpoint must exist). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but overall clear.

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