Persist the current state of a work slice without verifying or completing it, so agents can track progress and blockers across collaborative workflows.
Persist current slice state. Does not verify or complete work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| blocker | No | ||
| actor_id | Yes | ||
| slice_id | Yes | ||
| total_steps | No | ||
| current_step | No | ||
| execution_state | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates this is a persistence/write operation and explicitly excludes verification/completion semantics. However, it does not disclose whether updates are partial or full overwrites, idempotency, or any 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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by a clarifying boundary. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant 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?
Given six parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is too sparse for correct invocation. An agent would not know what execution_state values are expected, whether fields update incrementally, or what the output means, even though an output schema exists.
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%, yet the description adds almost no parameter-level guidance. 'Current slice state' vaguely maps to fields like execution_state and current_step, but it does not explain the roles of slice_id, actor_id, blocker, or valid values for execution_state or step values.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Persist current slice state.' It also explicitly differentiates itself from completion and verification workflows with 'Does not verify or complete work,' which clearly separates it from siblings like verify_slice, claim_done, and resolve.
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 gives a useful negative boundary by saying the tool does not verify or complete work, which implies it is for intermediate progress updates. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus a sibling tool, nor does it name an alternative tool for verification or completion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.