add_cross_reference

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It does not mention whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, or what happens on failure (e.g., invalid paragraph IDs).

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the key action. It is not verbose, but could include more detail (e.g., explaining parameters) without becoming excessively long.

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?

Given the tool has four parameters (three required) and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the relationship to cross-references vs. hyperlinks, nor does it clarify when document_handle is needed. The output schema exists but is not described.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It implies source_para_id and target_para_id as the paragraphs involved, but does not explain 'text' (likely the display text) or the optional 'document_handle'. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 (add) and object (cross-reference link) with source and target paragraphs. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_hyperlink or add_internal_link, which have similar purposes.

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 (e.g., add_hyperlink). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the paragraphs must exist or the document must be open.

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