update_annotation

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

The description adds behavioral insight beyond annotations: it instructs to ask for user confirmation before executing changes, which is important for a destructive operation (destructiveHint=true). It does not contradict any 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 consists of three concise sentences, front-loading the main purpose, then adding guidance and exclusions. No redundant information.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavior well. However, it lacks information about what the tool returns, which is a minor gap.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool modifies existing annotations, with specific verb 'modify' and resource 'existing annotation'. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly saying not to use for creating annotations (use create_annotation) or labels (use update_label).

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('user wants to modify an existing annotation'), when-not-to-use (creating annotations or labels), and advises to ask user for confirmation before executing. This is comprehensive.

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