annotate_responsive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The verb 'Annotate' hints at a non-destructive note-adding operation, but the description does not state whether this writes to the canvas, whether the frame itself is modified, whether annotations are reversible, how they are stored or displayed, or whether any analysis is performed. The text largely restates the tool name rather than revealing behavioral traits.

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 lean sentence with no redundant filler and the key domain is front-loaded. It is efficient for its length, though it is under-specified rather than over-long, and it largely rephrases the tool name instead of adding substantial new information.

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?

With two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves the agent without expectations for return values, side effects, or how annotations relate to the broader responsive tool family. Given the crowded sibling ecosystem of responsive and annotation tools, the description is too thin to support confident tool selection.

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 baseline is 3. The schema documents nodeId as 'Frame to annotate' and breakpoints as 'Breakpoints to annotate', and the description adds no further meaning such as the expected shape of the breakpoints array, whether it maps to existing breakpoints, or how the two parameters interact. The description neither compensates for nor worsens 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 uses a specific verb ('Annotate') with a resource ('a frame') and a precise domain ('breakpoint behavior and responsive rules'). This domain distinguishes it from sibling annotate_* tools (annotate_spacing, annotate_colors, annotate_typography, annotate_grid, annotate_hierarchy) and from responsive-modification tools like set_breakpoint and convert_to_responsive. However, it never explicitly names any sibling or the differentiating condition, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent choosing between annotate_responsive, set_breakpoint, convert_to_responsive, create_responsive_variant, and responsive_check receives no routing help, and there is no mention of prerequisites such as performing a responsive check first. The context in which annotation is preferred over actual responsive modification is entirely absent.

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