Record a safe stop

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains that each call appends a new stop, never replaces an earlier one, and does not move focus or close anything. It also describes the downstream effect on vivac_brief and how future sessions resume, which is valuable behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core action and parameter meaning, then adds behavioral and usage context in a logical order. Every sentence contributes either behavior, call timing, or sibling routing guidance.

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 non-destructive append-style tool with annotations covering safety hints and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, behavior, usage conditions, and alternatives. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 input schema. The description restates the label and next-step meaning but does not add syntax, formatting, or additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action and resource: recording a safe stop with a label and next-step note. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming vivac_park and vivac_note for adjacent needs, so an agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the 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?

It gives explicit call conditions: before a session ends, before a long pause or handoff, or when the person asks for a safe point. It also names alternatives and their purposes: vivac_park to set a node aside and vivac_note to keep a fact on one.

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