Save session to library

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

Annotations only cover the safety quadrants (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false). The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the server scrubs token-shaped secrets before storing, and the stored session is private and never listed publicly by this tool. It omits auth requirements, size limits, and what happens on a content_sha256 mismatch, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, no filler. The final privacy sentence partially duplicates the visibility enum's own 'Always private' description, which is the only mild redundancy.

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 write tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, scrubbing, and privacy but says nothing about what the call returns (library id / lineage handle), authentication requirements, or failure modes such as hash mismatch. Reasonably complete but with clear gaps an agent would want filled.

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 63%, so the schema already documents parent, transcript, visibility, content_sha256, and client_scrubbed. The description only re-touches the transcript format and the scrubbing that relates to client_scrubbed, and adds nothing about label, title, or idempotency_key. This matches the baseline for moderate coverage.

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 specific verb+resource and scope: 'Save a session transcript (JSONL) to your private a4sx library.' That clearly separates it from read-side siblings like search_sessions, get_session_summary, and acquire_session. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 (save a transcript when you want to persist it), and the closing line hints that public listing is a separate web-app step, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no precondition guidance, and no named alternative such as acquire_session. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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