live_snapshot_write

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states that this is a checkpoint write and that it enables later retrieval without re-reading moves, but it does not disclose overwrite behavior, session state requirements, or failure semantics. The idempotency behavior is only in the parameter schema, not the main description.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose, frequency, retrieval, and benefit each get a short sentence. No fluff, and every sentence 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?

The description provides sufficient context for selecting and invoking the tool: it explains purpose, usage frequency, and how to retrieve the snapshot. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists, and for a write operation this is less critical. Overall, it is quite complete.

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 high (83%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The tool description adds the 'every 3 turns' hint for after_turn_n, but overall contributes little beyond schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'flush a rolling checkpoint' in a Live Teaching session. It distinguishes this tool from its retrieval sibling by explicitly referencing live_snapshot_get_latest, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context: recommended every 3 turns ('建议每 3 轮写一次') and indicates retrieval via live_snapshot_get_latest after compaction, contrasting with re-reading all moves. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the guidance is strong.

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