jp_lit_annotate_session

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

Annotations are all false and carry essentially no safety information, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool writes to the session, only adds selection judgments, and does not modify unselected results or the cache. This is useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not cover overwrite/idempotency semantics explicitly.

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 four short clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by side-effect clarification and sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the schema.

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 complex nested schema and rich per-parameter descriptions, the description adds the missing behavioral and routing context: write scope, non-destruction of raw results/cache, and clear alternative tools. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. No meaningful information needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, and each parameter already has detailed descriptions, validations, and examples in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning session_id and the cache in passing. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action—saving candidate labels and short memos to existing search/bibliographic results within a session identified by session_id—and clearly scopes what is written. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from jp_lit_update_session_trace, jp_lit_find_sessions, and jp_lit_list_sessions, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 states exactly when to use this tool (annotating selection decisions on existing results) and when not to: overall research goals/unresolved items/next actions go to jp_lit_update_session_trace, and plain history retrieval goes to jp_lit_find_sessions / jp_lit_list_sessions. This is explicit routing with named alternatives.

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