goldhold_plan_checkpoint

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a persistence/write behavior, but it does not explain overwrite semantics, whether an existing plan is required, what happens to prior checkpoints, or what the response contains.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short, though the brevity omits important behavioral and parameter context.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, eight undocumented parameters, and many closely related sibling tools, this description is not sufficient for reliable tool selection or invocation. An agent cannot determine the meaning of most fields or the consequences of calling this tool.

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 has 8 parameters with zero description coverage. The description maps only 'active_refs' and 'resume_hint' to actual schema properties, and it mentions 'task counts' even though no such parameter exists in the schema. The remaining parameters like plan_slug, open_loops, current_state, and active_task_id are left unexplained.

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 clearly states an action ('Save') and a resource ('plan checkpoint'), and names some of the stored content ('active refs', 'resume hint'). It is clear enough to separate this from plan creation or restoration, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling goldhold_checkpoint.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus related tools like goldhold_checkpoint, goldhold_plan_restore, or goldhold_resume. The description only restates the action itself, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.

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