Save handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: this overwrites the prior checkpoint while preserving the timeline, which is a safe-guard against data loss. It stops short of stating auth requirements, storage location, or what the write returns.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the replace-semantics constraint is front-loaded before the routing advice. Every clause earns its place.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential overwrite behavior and the sequencing relative to siblings. It leaves a small gap around permissions/return behavior, but the rich schema covers the payload side.

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 92%, so the 13 parameters are already well documented in the schema (task, agent, notes, tests, blockers, keyFiles, etc.). The description adds no field-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource ('Write a complete checkpoint for the project') and adds the crucial scope qualifier that it replaces the previous checkpoint while keeping the timeline. An agent can distinguish this full-write tool from the incremental siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the timing ('at the start of a new task') and routes the agent to the correct alternatives afterwards ('use update_handoff or log_progress'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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