continuum_checkpoint

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description's explanation that recovery replays from the newest checkpoint and that checkpointing bounds crash cost is real added context about consequences. It stops short of saying whether checkpoints are overwritten or retained, or what the call returns, but with an output schema present that latter gap is acceptable.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the action and timing guidance, with the parameter guidance split out appropriately. The model_id sentence is slightly circuitous but its content is not 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?

The purpose, timing, and recovery semantics are complete, and the output schema covers return values. The definition is still incomplete for a 5-parameter tool where three optional parameters and the sole required one are undocumented anywhere.

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%, so the description must carry full parameter burden, and it only explains model_id (its role in continuum_resume's model-identity check and the 'unknown' fallback). The required run_id and the env, reason, and provider parameters are given no meaning at all in either structured or prose form.

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 durable checkpoint of the current task state.' That clearly separates it from the record_* siblings, which log progress/summaries rather than snapshotting state, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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 concrete trigger conditions: at milestones, before risky or irreversible steps, and before a long gap. What's missing is a negative case or an explicit contrast with continuum_record_progress, which an agent could easily confuse with checkpointing.

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