Record where this session stopped

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description corroborates the non-idempotent append model ('appends telemetry ... to the append-only handoffs ledger') and clarifies that nothing is destroyed ('later or no answer leaves them staged and blocks nothing'). It also discloses the staging side effect and the keep/pick/later prompt, which annotations cannot convey. It stops short of stating permissions or error 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?

The core purpose and its two side effects are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the downstream inheritance follows immediately. The trailing 'A pause:' sentence is dense and awkwardly phrased ('where the client can draw a question'), costing some readability, but no sentence is pure filler.

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-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is written, where it goes, the staging side effect, and what the next bootpack does with it. Safety is covered by annotations. The only gap is that the pause/prompt flow is described in terms an agent may find hard to act on, but nothing needed to call it correctly is 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 coverage is 67%; the one undocumented field (`trigger`) is only an enum. The description maps all three parameters in the parenthetical 'usage %, trigger, what was cut' and gives semantic meaning to the `wall` trigger via the doctrine ('do not ride to the wall'). It adds modest value over the schema but does not fully explain when to choose 'compaction' vs 'other'.

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: records a session boundary by appending telemetry to an append-only ledger AND staging a handoff note. An agent can tell this is the boundary-recording tool rather than a plain staging tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `stage`, which also stages notes, leaving some ambiguity about overlap.

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 doctrine line ('hand off at ~88-90%, do not ride to the wall') gives a concrete condition for calling it, and 'The next bootpack inherits it' explains the downstream purpose. However, it never names an alternative or an exclusion ('use X instead when...'), so the when-not case is absent.

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