jp_lit_update_session_trace

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

Annotations are all false, but the description states it appends or updates the session trace, clarifying that it writes to the session without being destructive. No contradiction with annotations, though it could specify whether updates are partial or full overwrite.

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?

Three sentences; first sentence states action and components, second and third clarify scope and provide alternative. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 an output schema exists and sibling tools cover session management, the description is complete for usage. It doesn't explicitly mention requiring an active session, but the name and context imply it.

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 3. The description adds context by listing the categories that map to parameters (research_goal, source_plans, etc.), providing semantic grouping beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 it updates the session trace with research purpose, scope, source reasons, open questions, and next actions. It distinguishes from sibling jp_lit_annotate_session by explicitly stating that tool is for candidate-level notes.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (for keeping a ledger of progress and decisions) and when not (for search results or candidate selection), and provides the alternative jp_lit_annotate_session for candidate-level notes.

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