annotate_hierarchy

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions 'annotate' but does not specify if annotations are additive or overwrite existing ones, whether the tool is destructive, or what the result looks like.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action. It could be slightly improved by listing parameters or examples, but it is not verbose and does not waste space.

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 simple input (one required parameter) and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information. It lacks behavioral details like idempotency or side effects, but for a straightforward annotation task, it is adequate.

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 single parameter 'nodeId' has a schema description ('Frame to annotate'). The tool description adds the output aspects (heading levels, etc.) but does not elaborate on the parameter beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3.

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: annotating visual hierarchy including heading levels, reading order, and focal points. However, it does not differentiate from sibling annotation tools like annotate_spacing or annotate_typography, which have similar structures but different foci.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like annotate_grid or check_consistency. The description merely states what the tool does without context on prioritization or when not to use it.

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