Record that a session with a given label occurred for this account's session bookkeeping. Use it to track session history separately from lane continuity resume and handoff tracking.
Record that a session under the given label happened, for this account's own session bookkeeping (separate from the per-lane continuity resume/handoff track).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that this is bookkeeping distinct from the continuity track; it says nothing about permissions, whether repeated labels create duplicates, idempotency, or what the call returns.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and free of filler. The parenthetical clarification is slightly dense but earns its place by disambiguating from siblings.
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 trivial one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it leaves the label's meaning and the effect of logging (what gets recorded, whether it is retrievable) unstated, which matters given zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage.
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% for the single required 'label' parameter. The description merely restates 'under the given label' without defining the label's format, uniqueness, or scope, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare string type.
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 ('Record') and resource ('a session under the given label'), and explicitly separates it from the resume/handoff continuity track. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings, though what constitutes a 'session' or a 'label' is left undefined.
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 phrase 'for this account's own session bookkeeping (separate from the per-lane continuity resume/handoff track)' implies when this tool applies and rules out the continuity siblings. However, it never states the concrete trigger for logging a session or what happens if you should have used resume/handoff instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.