mark_index_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so well: it reveals the invisible XE field behavior, the `see` cross-reference behavior, automatic backup slots, atomic validated saving, and refusal to operate on documents open in Word. The backup rotation wording is slightly cryptic, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core operation first, then the specialized `see` behavior, then safety and persistence details. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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?

The description covers the main operational behavior, the non-obvious backup mechanics, and an important environmental constraint (refuses open Word documents). However, with 9 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the missing parameter semantics for `occurrence`, `subentry`, and page-number formatting leave meaningful gaps. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but does not compensate for those parameter gaps.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies `see` and partially clarifies `backup`, but leaves 7 parameters—such as `occurrence`, `subentry`, `bold_page`, `italic_page`, `entry`, and `anchor_text`—without semantic explanation. This is only partial compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific action—marking a location for the index—and identifies the concrete artifact created (an invisible XE field at the anchor). It also explains the `see` mode, which differentiates this from simply inserting raw fields and from sibling tools like `insert_index` or `add_cross_reference`.

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 use case is implied rather than explicit: the tool is for creating index entry markers, with `see` providing a cross-reference variant. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it describe exclusions or when not to use it, though the `see` and backup notes offer some contextual guidance.

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