update_all_cross_references

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without detailing what 'update' entails—does it modify the file, require saving, have side effects? Critical behavioral aspects are omitted.

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 extremely concise (one sentence, 6 words), which is efficient. However, it may be too terse for a mutation tool, lacking structure like additional context or steps.

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 has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain the outcome of the update, possible confirmations, or error conditions. It is incomplete for a mutation operation.

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 100%, and the parameter description already indicates 'Path to the book file'. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond restating the resource. Baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Update'), the resource ('all cross references'), and the scope ('in a book'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like update_all_numbers and update_chapter_and_paragraph_numbers that operate on different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., must have a book open, valid path). The description lacks context for appropriate invocation.

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