curator_research_write

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: an authorization/identity gate (must be the matching spawned child with the pass ID), and that the destination filename is parent-controlled and cannot be redirected. It does not describe failure behavior, but the auth disclosure is valuable.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the write action, then the caller constraint. No filler, and the key restrictions are stated early.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the key call constraints (who may call, fixed destination). What remains thin is per-parameter meaning, which is missing given 0% schema coverage, but for the tool's overall scope 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 0%, so the description carries the parameter burden, yet it only indirectly references pass ID matching and 'pass and batch metadata'. It never explains 'content', 'batch_index', or 'batch_total' semantics (e.g., how batches are combined, defaults). Compensation for the coverage gap is partial at best.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Persist bounded web evidence to the parent-authorized Curator handoff'), so an agent knows it writes evidence into a specific destination. The 'Curator handoff' concept is somewhat jargon-y, and it does not explicitly name sibling tools it differs from, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Gives an explicit caller precondition: only a spawned 'curator_researcher' child with the matching pass ID may call it. It also states the caller cannot choose a destination or route evidence to another batch, which clarifies usage boundaries. It stops short of naming alternative tools for adjacent tasks.

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