taskguard_update_checkpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool updates a checkpoint's status and optionally attaches evidence. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites evidence), authentication requirements, or idempotency. The description is adequate but not rich.

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: the first states the purpose and trigger, the second encourages evidence. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the most critical information. Highly efficient.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema. The description does not explain return values or required fields beyond the trigger events. It briefly mentions evidence but omits rationale and identifiers. Sufficient for a simple status update but incomplete for full context.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameter beyond a general mention of 'evidence.' The description fails to add meaning to parameters like sessionId, checkpointId, rationale, or the evidence object structure. The schema is self-explanatory for enums, but the description should have compensated for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 (checkpoint), with specific trigger events: 'after starting, completing, or intentionally skipping a checkpoint.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like taskguard_add_checkpoint (add vs update) and taskguard_add_evidence (separate evidence addition).

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 explicitly says when to call the tool (after starting, completing, or skipping a checkpoint). It also advises to attach evidence 'whenever possible.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, though sibling names provide implicit differentiation.

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