Save session digest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals that the digest is 'stored compactly (max 4000 chars)' and 'automatically injected into the next chat's briefing', which are key behavioral traits. It also instructs to call silently and to produce a narrative, but does not mention persistence details, overwrite behavior, authentication, or failure modes.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides essential information: what it does, when to call, storage behavior, and content style. No filler or redundancy.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the purpose, timing, content requirements, storage size, and downstream use (next session briefing). Minor gaps include lack of information about return values or error handling, but these are not critical given the tool's nature.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, such as the required content ('what was discussed, decided, built, changed'), the max 4000 chars, and the instruction to write a distilled narrative rather than a raw transcript. This helps the agent construct the 'digest' parameter appropriately.

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 and resource: 'Compress and store a detailed digest of the ENTIRE current conversation'. It clearly defines the scope (from first message to now) and differentiates from siblings like save_memory or create_handoff by emphasizing the full-conversation digest and its automatic injection into the next session's briefing.

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 states when to call: 'Call this silently BEFORE ending or pausing any chat.' It also provides guidance on what to write ('Do NOT save raw transcripts — write a distilled, detailed narrative'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it vs sibling tools like save_memory.

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