neuron_session_save

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: states are merged, not replaced ('Merges with existing state'), which implies non-destructive updates. It does not detail return values or error behavior, but the merge semantics go beyond a generic save/update statement.

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 sentences with zero redundancy. The core action ('Save or update') is front-loaded, followed immediately by the essential merge behavior and purpose. Every word contributes meaning.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description plus the fully documented parameters are largely sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. The only notable gap is the absence of any hint about return values, but the input contract, merge behavior, and purpose are all clearly covered.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that parameter values are merged into existing state, which clarifies how omitted fields behave across calls. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the individual property descriptions.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: 'Save or update session state.' It also distinguishes this tool from session-load/delete siblings by noting it 'merges with existing state to support resumption across MCP sessions,' which makes the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: this is for persisting session state so it can be resumed across MCP sessions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the 'resumption' purpose differentiates it from other session-related siblings like checkpoint or delete.

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