save_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that summaries are 'epistemically scored', that low-scored summaries may not be injected next session, and that the operation saves to persistent memory. No contradictions noted.

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?

The description consists of two compact sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds essential behavioral context. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the trust scoring mechanism and injection eligibility. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (if anything) or potential error conditions, which would be helpful but not critical for a save operation.

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% with descriptions for both parameters, but the tool's description adds extra semantic value beyond the schema: it specifies the recommended word count range (100-200 words) and content guidelines for the 'summary' parameter ('active project, last decision, current output, open questions, key files'). The 'project' parameter is correctly noted as optional.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Save' and the resource 'trust-scored session summary to CognOS Session Memory'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'load_session' by implying the opposite action (save vs load), and also mentions an alternative ('/compact') for context.

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 description explicitly says when to use this tool ('instead of or after /compact to preserve verified context across sessions') and provides a guideline on summary quality ('short or vague summaries get lower trust scores and may not be injected next session'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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