PDF: delete an annotation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation semantics are covered. The description adds that it saves and defaults to the open document, plus a 'same save-in-Okular-first caveat as mark_text', which adds context but only by cross-referencing a sibling tool rather than spelling out the caveat.

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 critical routing information (xref source, save behavior) is presented early, but the first two sentences duplicate the same 'Delete an annotation by xref' information, so not every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a destructive tool, though, deferring the crucial Okular-save caveat to 'same ... as mark_text' leaves an agent without the actual precondition in-context.

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 carry the load. It does address both parameters—xref's origin (from `annotations`) and path's default (the open document)—but gives no format detail for `path`, leaving half the surface only partially compensated.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete an annotation') and the addressing key ('by xref'), which cleanly distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like mark_text and add_note. It falls short of a 5 only because the opening sentence is a near-verbatim restatement of the title before the substantive second sentence.

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 gives an implied workflow by telling the agent to use the xref 'reported by `annotations`', which is useful routing. However, it never states when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., modifying or hiding an annotation) nor any preconditions, so usage is only implied.

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