annotate_hierarchy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says 'Annotate' but does not explain whether this creates persistent annotations, modifies document state, replaces existing annotations, or returns anything. For a mutation-like tool this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the key specifics are listed compactly.

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 a simple one-parameter schema and a clear purpose, but there is no output schema and no annotation metadata. The description does not explain what the annotation result looks like or whether it modifies the document, so it is not fully complete for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents that nodeId is the frame to annotate. The description does not add further parameter semantics, but per the baseline with high schema coverage this is acceptable.

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 verb ('Annotate') and resource ('visual hierarchy'), then specifies the exact aspects covered: heading levels, reading order, focal points. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling annotate_* tools like annotate_spacing, annotate_colors, annotate_typography.

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 described scope implies when this tool should be used, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead. Listing the specific hierarchy aspects gives some context, but leaves routing to the agent's inference.

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