rms_checkpoint_save

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 important behavioral details: that it can create or update, and that updating preserves id/created_at and keeps omitted fields. However, it does not explain the exact behavior for creating vs updating (e.g., how it decides), error handling, or authorization requirements.

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 three sentences long, each providing essential information: the action and location, the usage timing, and the behavioral nuance on update. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it very 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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality but leaves gaps. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or prerequisites. The behavior for creating versus updating is implied but not fully specified, so the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the file naming convention ('artifacts/checkpoints/<name>.md') and that the checkpoint status is 'active'. This provides helpful context that the schema alone does not convey.

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 tool creates or updates a session checkpoint, specifying the file path and status. It is specific about the action and resource, but it does not strongly differentiate from the sibling tool 'rms_checkpoint_done', which might mark a checkpoint as completed. However, the purpose is still clear and actionable.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Save before context compaction or a long pause so work can be resumed.' This provides a clear context for usage. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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