Update problem statement

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds valuable behavioral detail: the partial-update semantics ('Only the arguments you pass are changed') and the validation quirk about inline math followed by a period. This goes beyond what annotations and schema provide.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the tool's purpose and the key behavior (partial updates), then adds a specific formatting rule. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema exists (the return value is presumably documented there), the description does not need to explain output. It covers the core function, the partial-update behavior, and a critical formatting restriction. It doesn't mention that a session must already exist, but that is implied by the required session_id parameter and the 'draft' phrasing. The tool is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, with each parameter (tags, title, constraints, description, etc.) having a short description. The tool description adds only a generic 'markdown with LaTeX' note, which partially overlaps with the schema's description field. There is no elaboration on syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already documents, so it meets the baseline but does not add significant extra semantic value.

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 writes the statement of a draft, naming all the components (title, description, input/output formats, constraints, interaction protocol, tags) and the format (markdown/LaTeX). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that update other aspects of a problem (like sources or testcases), even though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 gives partial usage guidance: 'Only the arguments you pass are changed' implies partial updates, and the warning about LaTeX formatting is a practical constraint. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus other update tools (e.g., repovive_build_update_problem_info) or mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond requiring a session_id.

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