Send Annotation To Connected Terminals

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as error conditions when no annotation node is selected, whether sending is destructive, or if any side effects occur. The description is too brief to offer sufficient transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no unnecessary words, and the key action is front-loaded. Every word contributes value.

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?

Despite low complexity, the description omits critical details: what constitutes annotation content, the role of the 'submit' parameter, and error handling. An agent cannot fully understand tool behavior without external knowledge.

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 0%, so description must explain params. It explains annotationNodeId (defaults to selected node) but provides no explanation for the 'submit' boolean parameter, leaving the agent uninformed about its behavior.

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 (send annotation content) and the target (all connected terminal nodes), and distinguishes from siblings like send_text_to_connected_terminals by specifying annotation node content.

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 when to use this tool (to send annotation content to all connected terminals) and contrasts with omission of annotationNodeId to use selected node, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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