jp_lit_annotate_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It reveals a key behavior: 'does not modify unsorted results, only adds screening decisions'. However, it lacks disclosure on side effects, idempotency, or required permissions, so transparency is partial.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded purpose, no wasted words. Efficient for its length, though more content would be justified given tool complexity.

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?

The description covers only the basic purpose and one behavioral trait. Lacks explanation of parameter structure, relationships between parameters, output schema details, and usage context. Incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters and deeply nested objects.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to any parameter. Agent receives no help understanding the role of tool, cache_key, selected_items, notes, or trace objects. A critical gap for a complex nested schema.

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 saves candidate labels and short memos to existing search results within the current session, and explicitly says it does not modify unsorted results. This differentiates it from search and export siblings, though it could better contrast with jp_lit_update_session_trace.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jp_lit_refine_results or jp_lit_update_session_trace. The description only implies session context but provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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