add_cross_reference

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

With no annotations, the description responsibly discloses the side effect of creating a bookmark if none exists and inserting a hyperlink. It does not cover potential issues like invalid paraIds or overwriting, but it provides transparent core behavior.

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 concise, well-structured with an intro and bulleted args, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without repetition.

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 tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers the main operation and parameter roles. It omits prerequisites and error conditions but provides a functional overview. Given the sister context of document editing tools, it is fairly complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter's role (source_para_id, target_para_id, text) in context. It adds meaning beyond parameter names, though it could be more precise about valid formats.

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?

Description clearly states it adds a cross-reference link between paragraphs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_comment or add_endnote by specifying the unique action of creating a bookmark and hyperlink.

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 explains the basic operation but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., paragraph existence), or exclusions (e.g., when target already has a bookmark). Usage is implied but not fully scoped.

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