jp_lit_update_session_trace

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It explains the tool writes/updates a session trace and lists what fields it affects. However, it doesn't specify whether updates are cumulative or replace existing data, and doesn't mention idempotency or rate limits. Still, behavior is mostly clear.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then details and differentiation. No wasted words. Efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects), the description covers the essential role and scope. It references output schema (present), so return values are handled. Could mention whether it overwrites or appends, but overall sufficient.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description reiterates the parameter categories (research_goal, open_questions, etc.) but adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema. 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?

Description clearly states it appends/updates session trace elements (research goal, scope, source reasons, open questions, next actions). Distinguishes from sibling jp_lit_annotate_session by contrasting scope (whole session vs candidate-level).

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 tells when to use (for session-level progress log) and when not (for candidate-specific notes, use jp_lit_annotate_session). Provides clear alternative.

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