checkpoint_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates the key boundary: the brief is refreshed but run status is unchanged. However, it does not disclose whether the previous brief is overwritten, whether ordering constraints matter, or whether any permissions or prerequisites exist.

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 constraint. It conveys maximum relevant information in minimal space.

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?

For a tool with 6 required parameters, no annotations, and no usage guidance, a one-sentence description is incomplete. While the output schema exists, the description still omits parameter semantics, ordering expectations, and side-effect details, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly without additional inference.

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 only hints that `brief` carries the new human-facing Brief. The other five required parameters (run_id, actor_id, actor_role, client_update_id, source_event_sequence) are not explained, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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 ('Refresh') with a clear resource ('latest human-facing Brief') and an explicit scope constraint ('without changing run status'). This distinguishes it from siblings like heartbeat_run, which change run status, and from read-only tools like get_human_brief.

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 intended use is implied: refresh the brief while preserving run status. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No sibling tool or condition is named.

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