wrap_auto

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that low-risk fields are applied immediately, high-risk changes are staged as unconfirmed records, a session_wrapped marker is always logged, and staged items are proposals not writes. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: trigger/context, alternative, risk-tier behavior, logging, and a caution. The prose is front-loaded with 'Tier 2' and 'safety net' and contains no filler or redundant restatement.

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 an 8-parameter, nested tool with only readOnlyHint=false and no output schema, this description covers purpose, trigger conditions, side-effect behavior, risk classification, and a critical caveat. It leaves no major gap in deciding whether and how to invoke the 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description reinforces the low-risk/high-risk split already present in schema descriptions. It adds crucial meaning by warning that pending_review is never effective immediately, clarifying how to set those fields, while not significantly altering parameter semantics beyond that.

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 explicitly frames wrap_auto as 'Tier 2 of auto-wrap' for persisting a session wrap without review, clearly naming the verb (persist, apply, stage) and resource (session wrap). It distinguishes itself from the interactive /wrap sibling by positioning it as a safety net, so an agent can tell what this tool uniquely does.

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?

It states when to use the tool ('context is about to be lost (compaction, session end) or the user declined to review') and explicitly says to use the normal interactive /wrap when the user is present and reviewing. This provides both inclusion and exclusion criteria, plus a clear warning against treating pending_review as immediately effective.

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