Manage annotation

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by calling the edit action 'a structured, verified transaction that works with raw Python disabled', which explains safety guarantees and a technical constraint beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Self-document a network'), followed by a concise list of actions. The second sentence adds important safety/constraint information without redundancy. Every phrase 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's complexity (12 parameters, 5 action types, no output schema), the description covers all major action categories and includes a caveat about raw Python. It does not detail return formats for list/enclosed operations, but this is somewhat inferable from the action names. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter with action-specific descriptions. The description does not add significant new meaning to the parameters beyond summarizing the actions at a high level. Thus the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'create a titled annotation box', 'safely edit an existing Annotate COMP's title, body, RGBA background, or exact node-space bounds', 'set an op comment', 'list annotations', or 'inspect geometric enclosure'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like document_network or edit_td_node_metadata by focusing on Annotate COMPs and annotation-specific operations.

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 opening phrase 'Self-document a network' provides clear context for when this tool is useful. It also enumerates the supported actions, allowing an agent to infer appropriate scenarios. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the top score.

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