add_footnote_ref

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

The description explains that it inserts a hyperlink-wrapped footnoteReference navigating to the same footnote and does not duplicate the footnote definition in footnotes.xml. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and adequately discloses key behaviors.

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 concise at four sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more streamlined by combining the usage and behavior sentences.

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 three parameters and no annotation support, the description provides basic usage and behavior. However, it does not mention error conditions (e.g., invalid footnote_id) or prerequisites (e.g., footnote must already exist). The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but completeness is only adequate.

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 does not explicitly describe the parameters beyond context. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to explain 'para_id' (the target paragraph), 'footnote_id' (the existing footnote), or the optional 'document_handle'. This omission leaves an agent uncertain about parameter roles.

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 adds a subsequent reference to an existing footnote without creating a new definition. It identifies the specific verb 'add' and resource 'footnote reference', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_footnote' and 'update_footnote' by emphasizing it does not duplicate the definition.

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 explicitly advises use when the same source must be cited again in a different paragraph, providing clear when-to-use context. It implicitly distinguishes from 'add_footnote' by stating no new definition is created, but does not explicitly state 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.