Write Working Snapshot

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the context that it writes two specific files, but lacks details on whether it overwrites or appends, any side effects, or required permissions. The information beyond annotations is minimal.

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 efficiently conveys the core action. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing critical details, slightly reducing effectiveness.

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 tool with only three simple string parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks explanation of the files' purpose, the role of the parameters, and how this tool fits into the overall workflow alongside siblings. More context would improve completeness.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate. The description does not explain what 'title', 'notes', or 'task' represent, or how they map to the generated files. The agent must infer meaning solely from parameter names, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Write' and specifies the resources ('working/current.json' and 'working/recent-session.md') along with a precondition ('after secret scanning'), which uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings like memory.working_current or memory.working_handoff.

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 hints at usage timing ('after secret scanning') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any when-not or prerequisite details. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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