guide_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a document mutation but does not say whether the guide is undoable, which session/document is affected, whether permission or active-session prerequisites apply, or whether it modifies the live document.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized but so terse that it omits information the agent needs, which is an underspecification issue rather than a verbosity one.

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. However, for a mutation tool with three required parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description omits parameter meaning, prerequisites, and effects, leaving significant gaps.

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 only echoes the orientation concept already encoded in the enum. It adds no meaning for session_id (which session?) or position (units, origin, range), leaving two of three required parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb (Add) and resource (horizontal or vertical image guide), which clearly separates it from sibling guide_list and guide_delete. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, though the noun 'guide' plus verb makes the intent inferable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to add a guide versus listing or deleting one, nor any prerequisites (e.g., an active session, an open document). The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb and sibling names.

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