Save Task Checkpoint

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), and the description adds the local-write scope, confirms no durable-memory deletion, and states no network access. It does not clarify whether checkpoints overwrite prior state or how the non-idempotent behavior manifests, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then usage and behavioral caveats. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers when to call it, what state it writes, and what it does not touch, which is sufficient for a checkpoint write. It could be slightly more complete on resume interaction with the sibling 'resume' tool.

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 all six parameters (reason, next, phase, blockers, completed, in_progress) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the structured fields provide, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Persist current operational task state') with the added purpose of resuming after interruption or context loss. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'remember' by noting that tool is for reusable knowledge, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('at meaningful milestones and before ending a work session') and names the alternative ('use remember for reusable knowledge') with the condition that selects it. Nothing is left to inference about timing or routing.

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