annotation

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, confirming a write operation. The description adds that it creates various annotation types but does not disclose side effects such as drawing mutations, required permissions, or transaction behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact, well-organized as a bulleted list, and every line provides operational detail. The header immediately conveys purpose, and the operation list 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?

The description effectively covers the various operations and their data shapes, but lacks information about return values, prerequisites, or side effects. Since no output schema is present, return behavior should be clarified. Overall, it is adequate for understanding operations but not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by documenting the operation-specific data fields for each operation (e.g., coordinates, text, dimensions). It also enumerates all allowed operation values, which the schema lacks. However, common parameters like doc_id and lease_token are not explained.

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 begins with 'Annotation: text, dimensions, and leaders' and lists six specific create operations, making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools (entity, layer, block) by focusing on annotation objects.

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 usage through the operation examples but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'entity' or 'drawing'. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are provided.

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