ghl_clientportal_cli_sandbox_checkpoint

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

Annotations only say non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the consequence of skipping it (a restart loses unsaved edits), the 409 conflict semantics, the OAuth scope (`clientportal-ai.write`), and the v3 version header requirement.

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?

Front-loaded with the side-effect warning and the ordering rule, which is good. But the ordering advice is repeated practically verbatim in the second and third paragraphs, and the line 'Save the app's sandbox files as the point it restarts from' restates the annotation title, wasting space.

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 lifecycle precondition, the exact call sequence, error semantics, auth scope, and endpoint. With no output schema and only two parameters, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the `reason` enum already carries its own description (`turn_complete` vs `build_passed`), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the project-scoped endpoint and ordering context, not parameter-level meaning.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: saves the sandbox's files as the restore point a restarting sandbox comes back to. It also explicitly frames the surrounding flow (edits → checkpoint → build run) which distinguishes it from ghl_clientportal_cli_sandbox_edit and sandbox_view.

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?

Explicit sequencing: call it after a set of `POST .../sandbox/edit` calls and before starting the run that builds them. It also gives the precondition (`sandbox.status` must be `ready`) and what a 409 means, so the agent knows when to call, when not to, and how to interpret failure.

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