restore_checkpoint

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 the destructive behavior (replaces current session, unsaved work lost) and the confirmation requirement. It could add more detail about what happens to the current session state or whether the checkpoint is validated, but the core behavioral risk is well covered.

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 action and destructive consequence appear in the first sentence, and the confirmation requirement is stated in a short second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what is lost, and the confirmation gate. It doesn't mention what happens after loading (e.g., scene refresh) or error cases, but those are less critical than the destructive warning, which is fully addressed.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the confirm parameter's role ('Must be true; restoring discards unsaved work') and tying checkpoint to list_checkpoints, which helps the agent understand provenance. This exceeds the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Load') and resource ('a checkpoint'), and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_checkpoints, undo, redo, and push_undo by emphasizing it replaces the current session. The destructive nature is front-loaded, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly warns that everything unsaved is lost and instructs to confirm with the user before calling with confirm=true. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like undo/redo, but the destructive warning and checkpoint-specific language imply when it should be used versus lighter-weight session tools.

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