Save where the work stands

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key mutation semantics: fields merge into the latest version, arrays replace wholesale, omitted fields are preserved. It also sets a content guardrail (no personal/relationship facts). It stops short of stating auth requirements, whether writes are versioned/reversible, or any rate limits.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the usage constraint and the guardrail. The nested parenthetical field list is dense but every element maps to a real body key, so no sentence is wasted.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, merge semantics, and content restrictions for a 6-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema. Since there is no output schema, it could say what a successful save returns (e.g., version identifier), which is the one notable gap given the description mentions merging into 'the latest version'.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema by explaining merge-vs-replace behavior for `body` fields and that the listed fields are all optional within the object. The mechanical details of repo/branch/cwd are left to the schema, which already documents them.

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 ('Save a work handoff') and immediately scopes it to cross-tool, cross-agent continuity ('the next agent — in any tool — can pick up without re-reading anything'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `remember`, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 an explicit use condition ('only when this session cannot be captured locally') and an explicit exclusion routing personal/relationship facts to the `remember` sibling. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are present, with the alternative named.

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