jp_lit_update_session_trace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the tool performs append/update operations on a session trace, implying modification but not destruction. It does not detail side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits, but the description of 'append or update' provides adequate context for an update tool.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a sibling note. It is front-loaded with the core action ('write: session trace') and every sentence adds value. 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 tool has 5 parameters with nested structures and an output schema exists, the description provides a sufficient overview of what the tool does and how it relates to sibling tools. It covers the main sections of the session trace and mentions the tool's role as a ledger. It could be slightly more thorough on the update behavior, but it is largely complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description maps the high-level fields (research_goal, scope_note, source_plans, open_questions, next_actions) to the tool's functionality, adding context that these are for the entire session. However, it does not add significant new detail beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a score of 3.

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's purpose: 'write: session trace' and explains it appends or updates research purpose, scope, source reasons, open questions, and next actions. It distinguishes itself from the sibling jp_lit_annotate_session by specifying that tool is for candidate-level notes, making the purpose unique and clear.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to keep a ledger of research progress and judgments') and when not to use it ('not for search results or selection candidates'). It also provides an alternative tool (jp_lit_annotate_session) for candidate-level notes, offering clear guidance on tool selection.

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