Save working state

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint: false). The description adds valuable behavioral details: the packet is built from the current Git snapshot, it is secret-scanned before writing, and it does not ask for confirmation. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and safety checks.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose and usage are front-loaded, followed by the behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 write tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the trigger (wrap-up), the input (Git snapshot plus summary/nextSteps), and key behaviors (secret scan, no confirmation). It doesn't specify return values or error handling, but those are less critical given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema.

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 each parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The description only lightly touches on 'optional summary and nextSteps' which is redundant. It does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('persist') with a clear resource ('this session') and states the exact scenario (wrap-up) and goal (another agent can continue without a human). It distinguishes itself from siblings like resume_working_state and create_packet by framing it as a handoff mechanism, not just a generic write.

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 explicitly says 'Use at wrap-up', which gives a clear when-to-use condition. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context of the session handoff is specific enough. The lack of exclusions is a minor gap, not misleading.

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