claude-session-continuity-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies valid state transitions, side effects (updates the tasks table), idempotency, and return values (success/failure and whether the row was modified). This covers mutation impact, safety, and response format comprehensively.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential details in a logical flow: transitions, side effects, idempotency, and return values. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (mutation with state transitions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage rules, behavioral details (side effects, idempotency), and return values, providing all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents all parameters (taskId, status, note) well. The description adds some context by linking 'status' to transitions and 'done' to timestamp recording, and implies 'note' usage for summaries or block reasons, but this is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('Update') and resource ('a task's status'), and distinguishes it from siblings like task_add (create) and task_list (read). It specifies what aspect of the task is being updated (status), making the purpose specific and 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?

The description provides clear context by outlining valid status transitions (e.g., pending → in_progress → done) and when to set status to 'done' (automatically records completion timestamp). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like task_suggest or task_list, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing taskId).

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