add_footnote

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that a URL, if provided, is rendered as a hotlink. It does not mention any side effects, permissions required, or potential impact on the document structure. For a mutation tool, this is inadequate transparency.

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 contains two short sentences with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the core action, then adds one additional behavioral detail. This is highly concise and easy to parse.

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 that the tool has 4 parameters (2 required) and an output schema exists, the description should at least briefly explain the required parameters and any notable output. It only covers one optional parameter. The description is not complete enough for an agent to use the tool confidently without inferring or risking errors.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description only adds meaning for the 'url' parameter (rendered as hotlink). The other three parameters (para_id, text, document_handle) are completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's action ('Add a footnote to a paragraph') and mentions the URL behavior. It distinguishes from siblings like add_endnote, but does not explicitly differentiate from add_footnote_ref, which is a closely related tool. The verb and resource are specific enough for an agent to understand the core function.

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 such as add_endnote, add_footnote_ref, or update_footnote. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would help an agent decide between siblings. The description leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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