jp_lit_update_session_trace

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent, and the description reinforces this with 'write' and '追記または更新' (append/update). It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that this tool maintains a ledger of investigation progress and judgments rather than raw search outcomes.

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 compact and front-loaded with the operation type, immediately lists what can be updated, and closes with a clear exclusion and alternative. Every sentence contributes meaning, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema fields.

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?

For a complex session-trace tool with six parameters and detailed schema documentation, the description provides the essential purpose, scope, and sibling distinction. It could be more explicit about whether updating an existing session trace merges or replaces prior content, but the schema, annotations, and sibling guidance otherwise give the agent enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description summarizes the main fields (research goal, scope, source reasons, open questions, next actions) and maps them to the session-trace concept, but it does not add material parameter-level detail beyond what the input schema already documents.

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 states a specific operation and resource: append or update the session trace for the session identified by session_id, covering research goal, confirmation scope, source selection reasons, open questions, and next actions. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from jp_lit_annotate_session by clarifying that this tool is for the session-level investigation ledger, not 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?

The description gives an explicit exclusion and alternative: it is not for storing search results or selected candidates, and candidate-level accept/reject notes should use jp_lit_annotate_session. This gives the agent a clear routing rule for when to use this tool versus the most relevant sibling.

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