Persist the current state of a CueMap project as a durable checkpoint without unloading, for when explicit saving is needed beyond automatic package saves.
Persist the current state of a CueMap project without unloading it. Package operations save automatically; use this only when an explicit durable checkpoint is useful.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Project ID to save. Defaults to the repository-scoped project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clarifies the operation does not unload the project and that it is a durable persistence action, but it does not mention overwrite behavior, failure modes, or side effects.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The key fact is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is compact and immediately actionable.
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 one-optional-parameter tool, the description covers what it does and when to use it. There is no output schema or annotation coverage, so some details like return behavior are absent, but the tool is simple enough that the description is largely sufficient.
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?
The schema already documents the single parameter at 100% coverage, including its default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: persist the current state of a CueMap project. It also distinguishes itself from operations that unload and notes that package operations save automatically, so an agent can separate it from related siblings.
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?
Explicitly says to use this only when an explicit durable checkpoint is useful, and clarifies that package operations already save. It names the general alternative category but not the specific sibling tool, leaving a small gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.