research_update

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description usefully narrows the blast radius: it preserves revision history and does not touch existing evidence or judgments. This adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it omits auth requirements and reversibility 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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and scope; no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a mutation tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers what changes and what is preserved, but leaves gaps on the required identifier, the partial-update semantics, and the return behavior, which matter 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the two mutable fields (title, question) but says nothing about the required study_id identifier or the format constraint (^r_[a-f0-9]{8}$), and does not clarify whether both fields must be supplied or at least one.

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: modifying the research title or question, with a clear scope qualifier ('不改写已有证据和判断'). An agent can tell this is an edit operation rather than create/delete, though it does not name a sibling to distinguish from (e.g., research_create or research_add_claim).

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 by the scope statement — use this to change a study's title or question. However, no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance is given, nor are prerequisites or the case where neither field is supplied addressed.

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