collect_candidate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It states 'persist' implying a write operation, but does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, idempotency, or behavior on duplicate candidates. This is insufficient for a mutation 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?

The description is very concise at one sentence, but it lacks substantive information. While brevity is positive, it comes at the cost of clarity and completeness, making it merely adequate.

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 13 sibling tools, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's role within the corpus management workflow, nor does it specify inputs, outputs, or prerequisites.

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?

The input schema has a single parameter 'kwargs' with no type or description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning about what kwargs should contain, failing to compensate for the lack of schema detail.

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 specifies a verb ('collect') and resource ('candidate document') and mentions persistence of raw payload, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like accept_document or reject_document. However, the term 'collect' is ambiguous and could imply fetching or gathering, requiring clarification.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as accept_document, discover_documents, or list_candidates. The description lacks context for tool selection.

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