add_text_annotation

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

No annotations are present; the description gives basic behavioral info (returns success message, text constraints) but omits details about side effects (e.g., overwriting existing annotations), coordinate validation, or impact on the graph state.

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 reasonably concise with clear Args/Returns formatting. It is front-loaded with the main action. Minor improvement: could be slightly more compact by integrating the parameter notes inline.

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 no annotations and a moderate number of parameters, the description covers parameter semantics well but lacks usage context and behavioral details (e.g., error handling, coordinate system). The output schema exists but is not shown; the description at least mentions the return value.

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 description fully explains all 5 parameters: graph_name, text (with restriction on characters), x, y, and name (default). This adds crucial meaning beyond the input schema's minimal titles, compensating for 0% schema coverage.

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 'Add a text label to a graph at data coordinates,' specifying the action (add) and resource (graph) with the type of annotation (text label). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_arrow or add_line.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_arrow, add_reference_line). There is no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, 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.