annotate_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses session creation, local HTTP service startup, window reuse/in-place reload, clearing of previous annotations, automatic reload after apply_edit via server push, and the returned {session_id, url}. This goes well beyond what the schema alone communicates.

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 information-dense and front-loads the primary action and return value before the multi-turn loop explanation. Minor redundancy exists: the final sentence about reusing existing windows repeats the earlier reuse statement, slightly padding an otherwise efficient description.

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 having no output schema, the description states the return value explicitly. It also covers the window lifecycle, the automatic reload mechanism, and the exact conditions under which the agent should call the tool again. For a tool that starts a local service and manages a browser window, nothing needed for a correct call is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes path as an absolute .docx/.xlsx/.pptx path. The description adds meaning by making path the identity used for window reuse ('同一文档'), which clarifies that the same path maps to the same session/window. That is value beyond the schema's type-level description.

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 names a specific action ('打开文档标注页面'), explains the underlying work (create annotation session, start local HTTP service, open an H5 page in a standalone browser window), and distinguishes the tool's key reuse behavior from a simple one-shot opener. It leaves no ambiguity about the resource it operates on.

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?

It provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: call at the start of a round or when an immediate refresh is needed, but not after every edit because the window auto-reloads after apply_edit. It does not explicitly name alternatives among the sibling tools, but the behavioral loop guidance is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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