Record research intelligence brief

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. 'Persist' signals a write operation, and 'communication artifact, not project knowledge' adds some storage-context clarity. However, it does not disclose whether the write is idempotent, what happens on duplicate periods, prerequisites, authorization needs, or how the artifact relates to later listing/retrieval.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Both the core purpose and the important 'not project knowledge' distinction earn their place, making this appropriately concise.

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?

This is a 10-parameter, 7-required-field write tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions. A one-sentence description stating only that it persists a communication artifact is far from sufficient to guide an agent on how to construct the brief, set the period, or populate the optional fields. Some context exists, but major gaps remain.

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% and the description provides no parameter-level meaning at all. Properties like brief_markdown, candidate_ids, search_queries, and trigger_type remain unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clear action and resource: 'Persist an Agent-generated research intelligence brief.' The added clause 'this is a communication artifact, not project knowledge' helpfully positions the tool against the project-knowledge siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from other record_* tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'not project knowledge' implies a boundary against prepare_project_knowledge-style tools, but it does not mention record_research_activity, generate_research_report, or list_research_intelligence_briefs, nor does it provide any positive selection criteria.

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