begin_operation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool creates an undo boundary and a checkpoint, and that the wrapper can be cancelled as one unit. It doesn't detail failure modes or the need for force when another operation is open, but the schema covers those.

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 concise sentences, with the core definition front-loaded and the practical usage immediately following. Every sentence earns its place and there is no wasted text.

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?

The description explains the lifecycle well: begin opens, end_operation closes, and the operation can be abandoned in one call. It doesn't explicitly name cancel_operation, but the reference to abandonment combined with the sibling list makes the flow recoverable. For a stateful tool with no output schema, this is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds general conceptual framing about operations and checkpoints but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Open a named operation.' It then clarifies the two key effects: an undo boundary and a checkpoint, which distinguishes it from related siblings like push_undo, create_checkpoint, end_operation, and cancel_operation. The purpose is immediately identifiable.

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 second sentence gives clear usage context: wrap multi-step asset work in begin_operation / end_operation so it appears as one history task and can be abandoned in one call. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name alternatives such as create_checkpoint, but it gives enough context for an agent to decide.

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