paper_research_prisma

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose two meaningful traits: the operation is idempotent ('insert or replace') and it targets a named artifact (research/prisma.md). It does not say whether an existing appendix's content is destroyed, whether the source PRISMA file must already be generated, or what the response looks like.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the key qualifier, with zero filler. It is efficient but so terse that it leaves little room for the usage context that is missing elsewhere.

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 four-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover prerequisites, the effect on existing content, and what the optional parameters mean. It covers only the high-level outcome, so an agent would have to guess at everything else.

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 only 25% — only 'after' is documented — and the description does not mention name, level, or heading at all. Given that low coverage, the description is expected to compensate, and it does not; the agent learns nothing about how heading/level govern the appendix structure.

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?

States a concrete verb pair ('insert or replace') and a concrete resource ('Quarto appendix' containing the PRISMA screening flow from research/prisma.md'), so the agent knows exactly what artifact is produced. It does not differentiate itself from near-neighbours like paper_write_section or paper_render, which is the only thing keeping it below a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when this should be called versus paper_write_section, paper_render, or paper_research_sync, and no prerequisites are stated. The only hint is implicit in 'insert or replace', which suggests re-running is safe, but nothing tells the agent when the PRISMA block is expected to exist.

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