set_annotation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals a write operation and markdown support, but does not state whether updates replace all existing annotation text, whether there are permissions/requirements, whether annotations are attached to specific node types, or what the response looks like.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. It avoids fluff, though it could earn more value by adding a usage hint or clarifying the update semantics without adding much length.

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?

For a two-parameter write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It does not clarify overwrite behavior, scope, or required context. Given the large sibling list and the presence of related annotation tools, more context is needed to invoke it correctly.

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 both parameters. The description's mention of markdown support adds small context about the text format (markdown), but it does not explain what nodeId accepts beyond 'Node to annotate'. The description adds a bit of value but does not compensate for the minimal schema descriptions.

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 'Create or update an annotation with markdown support' states a clear verb (create/update) and resource (annotation), and specifies markdown support. It distinguishes somewhat from the sibling get_annotations, but not as sharply as it could—it doesn't clarify the target object (nodeId) or the difference from related annotation tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or related operations. There is no mention of whether nodeId refers to a node, page, or other entity, or whether existing annotations are overwritten. An agent would have to infer usage from the schema alone.

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