rms_checkpoint_save

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses update merge semantics (id/created_at preserved, omitted fields kept) and an automatic side effect (branch and HEAD recorded). It does not cover failure modes, permissions, or what a save returns, 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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose plus location, when to call it, update/merge behavior, and automatic metadata capture. The core action and path are front-loaded with no filler.

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 five-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, mutation semantics, and side effects adequately. The remaining gap is the absence of any statement about the result of a save, which matters slightly more because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 all five parameters are already documented in structured form and the baseline is 3. The description adds only that <name> becomes the filename; it says nothing extra about goal, pending, links, or project beyond what the schema states.

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?

"Create or update a session checkpoint" gives a specific verb pair and resource, and the storage location (artifacts/checkpoints/<name>.md, status=active) makes the effect concrete. It implicitly separates itself from rms_checkpoint_query/load/done by being the write path, but it never names a sibling or states the boundary explicitly.

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?

"Save before context compaction or a long pause so work can be resumed" gives a clear triggering condition tied to a real scenario. There is no when-not guidance (e.g. when to use rms_checkpoint_done instead of updating, or when a checkpoint is unnecessary), so it stops short of the top band.

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