update_investigation_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the PATCH method and active-only constraint, but does not explain side effects, return values, permission requirements, or consequences of partial updates. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 that efficiently conveys the action and key constraint. The paper section references add a bit of noise but do not detract significantly from clarity.

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 that the schema fully documents all parameters and there is no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core action and the active-only constraint for a simple metadata update tool. However, it leaves questions about failure modes and behavior on inactive investigations.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the 4 parameters, including null-to-clear semantics for time_bounds and event details for triggering_events. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond naming the two updatable fields, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'PATCH practitioner metadata' with specific fields (triggering_events and/or time_bounds) and paper references, making it distinct from sibling tools like seal_investigation or delete_investigation. The verb+resource combination is precise.

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 notes 'Active only,' which provides a context for when this tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as for sealed or deleted investigations. It implies usage through the PATCH action but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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