reader_add_annotation

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

No annotations (e.g., readOnly or destructive hints) are provided, so the description itself carries the burden. 'Write' suggests a mutation, but it does not disclose any side effects, power requirements, or potential irreversible changes. The description lacks transparency about what happens after the annotation is written.

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 and gets directly to the point without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured and easy to read, though the phrase 'stable agent identity' adds a bit of complexity.

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 tool has only three parameters and no output schema, so the context is relatively simple. However, the description fails to provide adequate context about the parameters, their roles, or the expected format of the annotation, making it incomplete for a new user. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but lacks depth.

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?

The schema has no descriptions for the parameters, and the tool description only vaguely references 'paragraph annotation.' It does not explain what 'content' should contain, what 'reply_to_id' refers to, or how 'paragraph_id' is used. The names are somewhat self-explanatory but lack the detail needed for correct usage.

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 the action is to 'write a paragraph annotation,' which is a specific verb and object. The phrase 'as this MCP server's stable agent identity' is somewhat ambiguous but does not obscure the core purpose. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'reader_get_paragraph_thread' which are about retrieval or navigation.

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 implies this tool is used for adding annotations to a paragraph, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus when to use sibling tools like listing books or reading chapters. There is no direct guidance on prerequisites or alternative scenarios, leaving some room for interpretation.

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