classify_document_relevance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether submissions are idempotent, whether they overwrite prior classifications, what permissions or run state are required, or what happens on an invalid run_id – significant omissions for a mutating submit tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the detail needed 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 5-parameter, 0%-coverage mutating tool with no annotations and multiple look-alike siblings, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently.

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 alone leaves run_id, document_id, is_relevant, reasoning, and relevance_score (which has a default) undocumented. The description gestures at document and relevance conceptually but maps to no parameter and explains none of the required/optional distinctions.

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 verb ('Submit') and resource ('relevance classification for an ingested document') are specific, and it names the research-objective context. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like submit_relevance_extraction_batch and submit_extracted_signals, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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 implies the tool is used to record a relevance decision for a document, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. With close siblings like submit_relevance_extraction_batch and submit_extracted_signals, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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