rms_checkpoint_done

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the important behavior: a mutating status change with the concrete consequence of dropping out of recall, plus a durable side-effect write to artifacts/sessions/. It does not cover error behavior (unknown checkpoint name), idempotency of repeated closes, or whether an existing session note is overwritten, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and its two consequences immediately after. No filler, no restatement of the tool name or schema, and every clause carries information.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, the primary state change, and the side-effect write, which is what an agent needs to invoke it. The gap is the optional 'project' parameter (workspace-root fallback) and the absence of any statement about return behavior or failure modes.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter types and descriptions are already documented; the baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by linking the 'summary' parameter to a concrete artifact ('writes a durable session summary note under artifacts/sessions/'), telling the agent what the summary text becomes rather than merely that it is 'what was accomplished'.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Close a checkpoint') and immediately states both effects: the status becomes done and a durable session note is written under artifacts/sessions/. This clearly separates it from the sibling rms_checkpoint_save, which the agent can infer persists/opens a checkpoint rather than closing one.

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?

Usage is implied well by 'Close a checkpoint' plus 'drops out of recall', so an agent knows this is the terminal step that retires a checkpoint from active recall. It stops short of explicitly naming rms_checkpoint_save as the alternative or stating exclusions (e.g., do not use to update an open checkpoint), so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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