auto_preserve_context

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or requires any permissions. The single sentence provides no insights into side effects or behavior beyond the verb 'persist'.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise but at the expense of needed detail. It could be expanded without losing brevity.

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's two parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits details about expected input formats, output (though output schema exists but not described here), and the tool's effect on the system state.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-level context. It hints that 'summary' is the chat context but does not explain its format or the purpose of 'metadata'. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 'Persist high-level chat context' clearly states the action (persist) and resource (high-level chat context), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'pull_context' which retrieves. However, it lacks specificity on what exactly constitutes 'high-level chat context' and how it differs from other persistence operations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reorganize' or 'update_index'. There is no mention of prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or when not to use it.

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