save_checkpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds meaningful behavioral context: 'durable' implies persistence, and the size cap ('~512 KB') plus 'store large blobs externally' disclose important limitations. It does not cover overwrite semantics or side effects, but the provided constraints are valuable.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: one sentence states purpose, followed by two short, high-value sentences about meta and size constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Required parameters is work_id and data, both understandable from the description and schema. But optional parameters platform and token_snapshot are not contextualized, and behavior around overwriting or updating an existing checkpoint for the same work_id is absent. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed, but the gaps around optional params and lifecycle behavior make this only partially complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains meta as a free-form bag for Horos receipt_hash or Mneme memory keys and notes JSON size limits. However, platform and token_snapshot are left unexplained, and data is only implicitly described via 'checkpoint' and the size cap.

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 opens with 'Save a durable checkpoint for work_id,' which names a specific verb, resource, and target. It clearly differentiates from siblings like load_checkpoint, list_checkpoints, and mark_done by indicating this is the write/save operation.

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 states what the tool does but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to call save_checkpoint instead of mark_done or check_usage; usage is only implied by the verb 'save' and the checkpoint resource.

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