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

All annotations are false, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates an additive mutation ('Add') and uses 'bounded' as a qualifier, but it does not disclose what happens to existing content, size limits, idempotency, permissions, or response behavior. For a mutation tool with no annotation support, this is insufficient.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes information, and the most distinguishing detail ('without resending the full task history') is included efficiently.

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?

A tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations needs substantially more context. The description covers only the high-level purpose, leaving parameter usage, return behavior, side effects, and operational constraints entirely unexplained.

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?

With 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no parameter-level meaning. It does not define 'capsule', clarify what the *Add arrays contain, or explain the semantics of remainingDoneIndices beyond what their names weakly imply.

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 action ('Add') on a specific resource ('existing continuity capsule') with a qualifier ('bounded progress checkpoint') and a key differentiator ('without resending the full task history'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_handoff_capsule or resume_agent_task even without naming them.

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 phrase 'existing continuity capsule' and 'without resending the full task history' imply a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to alternative tools. The guidance is mostly implicit rather than actionable.

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