workspace_resolve_external_reference_candidate

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'Apply' (implying a mutation) without details on side effects, reversibility, permissions, or impact on existing resolutions. It does not mention the overwrite flag or any consequences, leaving the agent without essential safety or impact information.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately structured. It lacks front-loaded key details (e.g., the workflow, required parameters) and does not earn its place by conveying essential 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?

For a tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the resolution workflow, what a successful application returns, error conditions, or how this tool fits into the external-reference pipeline. An agent cannot call this tool correctly with the given information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not describe any of the six parameters (paper_id, blocked_id, candidate_id, overwrite, import_target, artifact_dir) beyond the vague 'searched candidate.' This is a critical gap; the agent cannot understand how to supply the arguments correctly.

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 'Apply a searched candidate as an explicit reference resolution' clearly identifies the action (apply) and the resource (a searched candidate) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like workspace_search_external_reference (searching) and workspace_list_external_reference_resolutions (listing). It implies a workflow but doesn't explicitly state the relationship to search, so it's slightly below perfect.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workspace_resolve_external_reference, or on prerequisites like having performed a search first. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between this and other external-reference tools.

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