add_research_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add research document metadata' without explaining whether this creates a new record, updates an existing one, requires an existing experiment, or has side effects.

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 short sentence with no filler or wordiness. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, though it is arguably too terse to fully support tool selection and invocation.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves the agent with many unknowns: what 'metadata' includes, what the document_id refers to, what document_type values are valid, and what happens after calling the tool. This is inadequate for correct invocation in non-obvious contexts.

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 does not mention any parameters or their meanings. The tool has five parameters, three required, and the description adds no semantic value beyond the property names already present in the schema.

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 action ('Add') and resource ('research document metadata'), making the tool's core function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_research_document or add_experiment, but 'document metadata' does imply a metadata-only scope.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_research_document or extract_pdf_text. No context is given about prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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