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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool creates a snapshot and records decisions, assumptions, and open questions, which implies a persistent write. Yet 'receipted' is undefined, and there's no mention of overwrite behavior, authorization needs, or what exactly the receipt contains.

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 three sentences, sets the main action first, and every sentence contributes meaningful context: what it creates, what it records, and why it's useful. There's no redundancy or filler.

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 five-parameter write operation with no annotations, the description provides high-level purpose and content but omits required parameter semantics and behavioral details. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for the gaps in parameter guidance. It's adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names three content categories (decisions, assumptions, open questions) that map to optional array parameters, but it doesn't cover the required session_id and summary, nor explain the structure of decisions_so_far. This leaves the agent with insufficient guidance for building a valid request.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('receipted snapshot of your current decision state'), making the primary purpose clear. It also conveys the resumption benefit, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like record_decision_context or log_progress.

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?

It clearly states the usage context: 'during a long-running session' and explains the benefit of resuming from the last checkpoint rather than replaying from zero. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or compare it directly to alternatives.

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