reading_annotate_passage

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

The description indicates the tool creates an annotation (mutating action). With no annotations beyond title, it does not disclose permissions, rate limits, side effects, or response format. It adds basic behavioral context but lacks depth.

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 two concise sentences: one for purpose and one for a key limitation. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or extraneous 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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain optional parameters or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent attempting to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, yet the description only explains 'quote' and 'note' implicitly. Parameters like kind, mood, tags, parentId, and quoteOffset are not described, leaving the agent with insufficient understanding despite containing 9 parameters.

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's purpose: 'Write a Claude margin annotation anchored to a quote in a chunk.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that human private notes should use the HTTP reader API.

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 a clear guideline on when not to use this tool: for human private notes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it or compare it to sibling tools like reading_list_annotations or reading_reply_to_annotation.

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