atlas_continuity_record

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a write operation, local, compact, and targeted beneath a specific home path. It does not contradict the annotations, but it does not disclose effects like overwriting, appending, or whether the path must exist.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, though the unexplained specialized terminology reduces some of the clarity gained from its brevity.

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?

With no output schema, minimal annotations, and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves important gaps: what a 'continuity card' is, how the parameters map to the card, and what happens after writing. The location hint is useful but not sufficient for confident invocation.

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 provides no explanation of title, summary, or source. The agent is left to infer the meaning of all three required parameters from their generic names alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Write') and identifies a unique resource ('local Atlas Cartographer continuity card') plus a target location. It is distinct enough from sibling tools like changelog_intake or personal_git_commit, though jargon such as 'Atlas Cartographer' and 'SHAWN_CORE_CONTINUITY_HOME' is not explained.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like changelog_intake or orchestrator_context. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions that should trigger its use.

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