add_hyperlink

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses mutation, automatic backup of prev/anchor slots, the effect of backup=False, atomic validated save, and refusal on Word-open documents. This is unusually transparent for a mutating tool.

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?

Three sentences contain no filler; the core operation, safety/backup behavior, and lock-out condition are each front-loaded and compact.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, the description covers operation, backup, and failure-lock behavior; the output schema covers return shape. Some practical details—file_path meaning, exact occurrence matching, and behavior when anchor_text is absent—are left to inference.

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%, so the description must add parameter meaning, and it does for anchor_text (occurrence-th match), url (external), occurrence (which match), and backup (skips rotation only). It leaves file_path implicit and does not specify the indexing base or matching semantics, so it is not perfect.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: turn existing text into an external hyperlink, anchored to the occurrence-th match of anchor_text. This clearly differentiates it from nearby siblings like add_cross_reference, add_bookmark, or insert_field.

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?

It communicates the core scenario—existing text, external link, occurrence-based targeting—and gives one explicit when-not condition (documents open in Word). However, it does not name alternatives or provide a when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use map among the large sibling tool set.

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