ps_research_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the edit is stored as its own revision, is locked, and a later recompute marks it stale rather than overwriting it. This is genuinely non-obvious and valuable, though it omits any auth/permission or concurrency details.

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 compact clauses with the action front-loaded and the persistence/locking caveat second. Nothing is redundant, though the second clause is carrying a lot in one sentence.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the revision/lock semantics are well covered. But for a 5-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description leaves parameter meaning and any precondition (session validity, section existence) unaddressed.

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% across five parameters, so the schema offers no guidance at all. The description only indirectly hints at section_id ('one section') and body ('your prose') and says nothing about session_id, config_path, or periscope_path, leaving three parameters unexplained.

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 specific verb and resource: rewriting a single section as the author, which is distinguishable from the sibling generation tools (ps_research_draft, ps_research_answer). However, it never names an alternative explicitly, so the agent must infer the boundary between editing and drafting.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Rewrite one section' suggests it applies to an existing section the author wants to own, but there is no explicit when-to-use condition and no mention of the sibling tools it competes with (ps_research_draft, ps_research_step).

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