Create save-game checkpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It goes beyond the schema by stating that the server does not classify or rewrite content, making it clear that the tool stores what it is given. The 'strictly separated' and GM-only phrasing also signals access semantics and data-handling behavior.

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 sentences deliver the core behavior, content separation, and the server's non-rewriting guarantee with no wasted wording. The sentence is front-loaded and free of tautology.

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?

Given the tool's simple flat parameter set, no output schema, and no enums or nested structures, the description plus schema supplies what a caller needs for a correct create operation. A missing explicit usage boundary and a description of the returned checkpoint identifier prevent a perfect score.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed guidance for worldId, gmNotes, and playerRecap, covering 75% of parameters; title is self-explanatory. The description adds orientation about recap and GM-note separation but does not introduce new parameter-level semantics.

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 explicitly states it "Create[s] a checkpoint" and characterizes its two core content types: player-safe recap and GM-only notes. This is a clear verb+resource statement and it is naturally distinguished from siblings like list_checkpoints or update_world.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to create a checkpoint versus setting current scene, listing checkpoints, or applying world changes. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the word 'checkpoint.'

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