Restore a directory from a checkpoint

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that files created since checkpoint are removed (destructive), but is ambiguous about whether other changes (modifications, deletions) are reverted. More detail on the full restoration behavior is needed.

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, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value without wasted words.

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?

No output schema. Description explains removal of new files but not restoration of modified files or overall output. For a destructive tool, more completeness (e.g., confirmation, effect on existing files) would improve usability.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds marginal value beyond schema (e.g., default cwd for dir). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (mirror/restore) and resource (directory from a checkpoint), explains what happens (files created since checkpoint are removed), and positions it as a rollback for mistakes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sh_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 says 'This is the rollback for an agent's mistakes,' implying when to use. However, it lacks explicit when-not to use or mention of alternatives, providing only moderate guidance.

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