Revise an existing research brief with new hypotheses, seed audiences, or exclusions to keep market research accurate and current.
Update an existing research brief with newly discovered hypotheses, seed audiences, or exclusions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brief_id | Yes | ||
| products | No | ||
| exclusions | No | ||
| competitors | No | ||
| seed_problems | No | ||
| seed_audiences | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals a mutation but says nothing about whether updates merge or replace existing content, what happens to fields not supplied, required permissions, or reversibility — a significant gap for a write 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 filler; the verb and target resource lead. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the under-specification problem rather than solving it.
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 explained, but for a 6-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage the behavioral and parameter detail is far too thin for an agent to call it safely.
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% with 6 parameters. The description mentions only some fields (seed audiences, exclusions, loosely 'hypotheses') and omits products, competitors, and seed_problems, leaving most parameters semantically undocumented in both schema and prose.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Update an existing research brief', and it names some of what can be changed (hypotheses, seed audiences, exclusions). It implicitly distinguishes itself from create_research via 'existing', but does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling tool.
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?
'with newly discovered hypotheses' hints at when to reach for it, and 'existing' implies the brief must already exist. However, no alternatives (e.g. create_research) are named and no conditions for choosing this over related research-state tools are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.