annotation

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation. The description adds operation-specific data shapes but does not disclose side effects, requirements, or error conditions beyond what the annotations already convey, providing only modest additional behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured: a one-line summary followed by a concise bulleted list of operations and their data. Every line adds necessary information, and the format is scannable.

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?

Presence of an output schema covers return-value documentation. The description sufficiently defines all listed operations and their data inputs, though it doesn't address the optional include_screenshot parameter or confirm whether the operation list is exhaustive, leaving minor gaps.

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 input schema treats 'data' as a generic object with additionalProperties, providing no structure. The description compensates by detailing the exact data fields for each operation (e.g., {x, y, text} for create_text), significantly enriching parameter understanding.

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 'Annotation: text, dimensions, and leaders' and enumerates specific operations (create_text, create_dimension_*, create_leader), making the tool's scope unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like drawing or entity.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for creating annotation objects, and the operation names define the exact use cases. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives like the entity tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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