Save a bounded, redacted work-state snapshot to create a deterministic resume contract, allowing long-running jobs to pause and resume within quota limits.
Save a bounded, redacted handoff state for deterministic resume.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | ||
| pending | Yes | ||
| lastTest | No | ||
| completed | Yes | ||
| gitStatus | No | ||
| objective | Yes | ||
| riskNotes | No | ||
| workspaceRoot | Yes | ||
| nextSafeAction | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the saved state is 'bounded' and 'redacted', signaling that not all workspace data is persisted. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, storage semantics, failure behavior, or side effects.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the key characteristics of the state being saved. Every phrase earns its place.
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 nine parameters, six required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. Missing are return values, overwrite semantics, how the state relates to resume_contract, and guidance on what 'bounded' and 'redacted' impose on callers.
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 names none of the nine parameters. 'Handoff state' is generic and does not clarify the roles of required fields such as jobId, completed, pending, and nextSafeAction. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter explanations.
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 ('Save') and a clearly defined resource ('bounded, redacted handoff state'). The phrase 'for deterministic resume' distinguishes it from sibling tools like resume_contract, which presumably consumes such a state.
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 purpose phrase 'for deterministic resume' implies this tool is used when persisting a checkpoint before a resume or handoff. However, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor alternatives compared against window_plan or resume_contract.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.