checkpoint_story

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and mostly meets it: it discloses that the tool commits uncommitted work as a WIP commit and appends to the journal. It does not cover failure behavior or permission requirements, but the principal side effects are explicit.

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, then moves through mechanics, parameters, and usage timing. Every sentence adds decision-relevant detail, including the journal path and step-label constraints, 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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers what it does, how it mutates state, what each parameter means, and when to call it. The output schema exists for return-value details, so no required context appears to be missing.

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%, but the description defines all five parameters in detail, including the journal filename pattern, example step labels, WIP-commit naming impact, and the optional nature of next_hint. This fully compensates for the empty 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?

States a specific action (record a durable checkpoint), a scoped resource (a dispatched agent's own progress on a story), and the concrete mechanism (WIP commit + journal append). The 'dispatched agent's own progress' framing distinguishes it from generic checkpoint/story-state siblings like checkpoint or set_story_status.

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?

Gives explicit timing: call after each idempotent step, not mid-step. Also explains the recovery flow via dispatch_story, making it clear when the checkpoint matters and how it ties to the alternative path.

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