add_annotation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It states that the tool 'will update the JCAD document' and explains the return value, which is useful. However, it does not disclose failure behavior, error conditions, or what happens to existing annotations, leaving significant gaps.

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 efficient: a clear one-line purpose, a param list, and a warning. While the whitespace around the warning is slightly awkward, every sentence adds information and nothing is redundant.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet it lacks critical context. It does not explain what the annotation is used for, how it relates to sibling tools, failure modes, or provide the missing jcad_path semantics. The warning is a good start but insufficient for a state-modifying tool.

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 the description must compensate. It documents parent, message, position, and user, but omits the required jcad_path param entirely. Moreover, several explanations are vague (e.g., 'position of the annotation', 'first messages in the annotation'), adding limited clarity.

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 opens with 'Add an annotation to the document', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like remove_annotation. It also clarifies the return value (annotation id) and the mutation side effect, reinforcing purpose.

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 gives an explicit usage prerequisite: 'To understand the current state of the document, you MUST first use the get_current_cad_design tool.' This is strong guidance, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions beyond the implicit contrast with remove_annotation.

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