万忆存档进度

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 discloses a useful behavioral trait: cross-session persistence for cold resume. However, it does not state whether saving overwrites existing progress, what authorization or side effects are involved, or what the response looks like.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that delivers the core purpose, the key behavioral benefit, and the saved fields in minimal space. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 definition is adequate for basic invocation, especially given the complete schema. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not explain return values, overwrite semantics, or error conditions, which are useful for an agent handling persistence operations.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description essentially restates the parameter list in prose without adding constraints, default values, or interaction details, so it adds no significant semantic value beyond the baseline.

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?

Description uses specific verb '存档' and resource '任务进度', and explicitly enumerates what is saved: task name, phase, progress percentage, and full state. It also mentions the cross-session cold-resume capability, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling '万忆加载进度'.

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 '支持跨会话冷续传' clearly conveys the intended use case: persist task progress so work can be resumed across sessions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over its load counterpart.

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