Update State

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

Annotations indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive. The description adds context about saving during long-running work for resumption, which is helpful but does not disclose any specific permissions, side effects, or behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear alternative. No wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has 9 parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimal. It does not explain the persistence mechanism, response format, or how the parameters interact. The output schema helps but the description could provide more context about the tool's role in the workflow.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions three parameters (active task, next action, blocker) but does not elaborate on others like scope, bucket, or metadata_json. It adds some meaning but stays at the baseline level.

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 tool saves working state for resuming sessions, using specific examples (active task, next action, blocker). It differentiates from 'remember' (durable facts) but not from other sibling memory tools like 'create_restart_snapshot' or 'store_memory', so sibling differentiation is partial.

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 an explicit alternative for durable facts ('use remember') but lacks guidance for other alternatives like 'create_restart_snapshot' or 'store_memory'. It does not specify when to use this tool versus those, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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