Save current task scope and status to preserve context and keep permissions unchanged; use it to checkpoint work without granting execution rights.
保存当前明确的任务范围和状态；不增加执行权限。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | Yes | ||
| scope | No | ||
| resume | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| new_task | No | ||
| context_handle | No | ||
| conversation_id | No | ||
| expected_task_id | No | ||
| expected_revision | No | ||
| expected_write_version | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful security property—that it does not increase execution permissions—but says nothing about mutation side effects, status transitions, revision/concurrency behavior, or authorization requirements for a 10-parameter stateful tool.
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 very short and front-loaded, with two clauses that contain no filler. It is concise, though its brevity is a completeness problem rather than a structural one.
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 the complex nested schema, 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It adds one behavioral constraint but leaves most operational and parameter semantics unexplained.
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 tool has 10 parameters, including nested scope fields and concurrency fields. The description only obliquely references 'scope' and 'status' by name and adds no meaning for goal, resume, new_task, context_handle, conversation_id, or the expected_* parameters.
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 names a specific verb-and-resource pair: it saves/records the current explicit task scope and status. That is clearer than a tautology and lets an agent understand the basic operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from a general update or creation operation.
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 implies usage by saying it saves the current task scope and status, but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The clause about not increasing execution permissions is a constraint, not a usage rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.