continuation_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key failure mode (silent failure when project_path is missing) and advises content priorities (unfinished work and hard-won lessons). However, it does not mention whether the operation overwrites or appends, any side effects, or what the tool returns on success or failure. This is adequate but has notable gaps.

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 relatively compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Sentences are purposeful, though the phrasing 'Write it BEFORE context runs out, not when you notice it is running out' is slightly redundant. Overall it avoids verbosity and delivers value in a few lines.

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 has 11 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description gives essential context: what to write, when to write, and a key pitfall. It does not explain the relationship between parameters or expected return behavior, but for a write operation the description is reasonably sufficient. It could be more complete about the write behavior and any preconditions, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds emphasis on project_path being required and gives content-quality guidance, but does not provide additional semantics for the other parameters. It adds marginal value over the schema.

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 starts with 'Write the handoff note for the NEXT session' which is a specific action on a specific resource, clearly distinct from the sibling read/cleanup/check/list tools. It also states the project context and the intent to persist state, making it unambiguous what the tool does.

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 provides explicit timing guidance ('Write it BEFORE context runs out, not when you notice it is running out') and stresses the criticality of project_path. It implies when to use (when writing a handoff) but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools, so it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives.

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