set_resume_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical mutation trait — that this overwrites rather than appends, and that only a single pinned block exists. It omits permission/auth requirements and any error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and overwrite semantics, then the rationale for the data, then the actionable timing. No padding 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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, content shape, consumption path (start_working) and when to update. Additional notes on the effect of overwriting existing context or on failure modes would make it fully complete.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces what the context text should contain (state / next steps / where to look), but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 ('Set (overwrite) the task's resume context') and defines exactly what the resource is — a single pinned block covering current state, done, next, and where to look. It also names the sibling flow (start_working) that consumes this data, so an agent can distinguish it from generic note/update tools.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Update it at the end of a work session,' and explains it is read first on a cold restart via start_working. It does not name explicit exclusions or alternatives (e.g. how this differs from add_work_note), so it falls short of a full 5.

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