save_checkpoint_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the downstream effect (the note surfaces at the top of the next agent's handoff context), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about persistence scope, whether repeated saves overwrite, or any permission requirements for a write operation.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and closes with the payoff for the next agent. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it does and why it matters. The remaining gaps – overwrite/repeat-save semantics and whether cwd is required to target a workspace – are modest but real for a write 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 the schema already documents cwd, summary, and next_steps in detail; baseline is 3. The description names 'summary and next steps' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema and says nothing about the cwd parameter's role in scoping the checkpoint.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Save an explicit checkpoint summary and next steps') plus the observable effect on the next agent's handoff context. It implicitly contrasts with the read-side sibling pull_handoff_context, but never names it or the other siblings, so differentiation is left to the agent.

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?

Usage is implied by 'so the next agent you open receives it' – i.e. call this before handing off – but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or statement of alternatives such as inject_session_to_agent or pull_handoff_context.

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