set_annotation

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Create or update an annotation' is too vague; it fails to mention whether updates merge or replace properties, permission requirements, or side effects. The upsert semantics are only implicitly hinted at.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does. No waste, no fluff. It 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain how to choose create vs update, what properties are for, or how this relates to get_annotations or set_multiple_annotations. The schema helps but the description lacks essential 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 100%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond restating the purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as high schema coverage carries the load.

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 'Create or update an annotation' clearly states the specific action (create/update) and resource (annotation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_annotations and set_multiple_annotations by implying a single annotation operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention set_multiple_annotations for batch operations nor explain the distinction between creating (no annotationId) and updating (with annotationId). This relies entirely on the schema.

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