nexo_continuity_snapshot_write

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

With no annotations, the description must explain behavioral aspects. It states 'durable' but does not disclose whether the snapshot overwrites existing data, is append-only, or any side effects. No info on idempotency, concurrency, or required permissions.

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, focused sentence without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is too brief for the tool's complexity, missing essential details.

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 8 parameters (0% schema coverage), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the snapshot's purpose, parameter roles, or expected behavior. Key context for a write operation is missing.

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% for 8 parameters, yet the description adds no parameter explanations. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema docs. No parameter purpose or format is indicated beyond what the schema provides.

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 the action ('Write'), the resource ('durable continuity snapshot'), and the context ('Desktop/Brain handoff'). It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools like nexo_continuity_snapshot_read by specifying the write 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other continuity tools (e.g., nexo_continuity_snapshot_read, nexo_continuity_audit). There is no mention of prerequisites, preconditions, or typical scenarios for usage.

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