jp_lit_annotate_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool only adds selection decisions without modifying original results or cache. However, it does not mention potential side effects like session existence requirements or error handling, which would make it a 5.

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 short but dense, front-loading the verb and resource, then providing behavioral constraints and sibling tool references. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 the nested schema complexity and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers core function, what it does not do, and clearly directs to sibling tools for related tasks.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the effect (no modification of unselected results/cache) and confirming the role of selected_items, enriching semantic understanding beyond schema alone.

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 the tool writes candidate labels and notes to existing results within a session, explicitly stating it does not modify unselected results or cache. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming jp_lit_update_session_trace, jp_lit_find_sessions, and jp_lit_list_sessions.

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 provides explicit guidance: use this tool for annotating within a session, but for overall survey purposes use jp_lit_update_session_trace, and for history search use jp_lit_find_sessions/jp_lit_list_sessions. This clearly defines when to use the tool versus alternatives.

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