add_pattern_annotation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the note is a side-effecting write, that it appears on printed sheets only when annotations are shown, and that supplying annotation_index replaces an existing note instead of adding another. It does not cover error cases or return values, but this is adequate for a simple annotation 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?

Two sentences deliver the core action, coordinate system, visibility condition, and replacement behavior without waste. The most important verb and object are front-loaded.

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 low-complexity write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the note is, where it is placed, when it becomes visible, and how to replace rather than append. The main gaps are parameter semantics details already penalized in that dimension.

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 compensate. It explains x/y as 2D coordinates in piece space, text as free-form note content, and annotation_index as the replacement flag. However, pattern_index is never explicitly tied to a pattern piece, and units/origin for x/y are not given.

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 a specific verb ('Write a note') and names the resource ('a piece') plus the domain (2D pattern coordinates). It also distinguishes itself from the read-oriented sibling get_pattern_annotations by making clear this is a write/replace operation.

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 implies when the tool is used: to add a note to a pattern piece and optionally replace an existing note. It gives no explicit comparison with alternatives such as get_pattern_annotations, and does not state when to use this vs. other pattern-editing tools.

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