delete_footer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose that the operation is destructive, nor does it mention if it affects all sections or only the current one. No information about permissions, reversibility, or side effects is provided.

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 a single sentence that gets straight to the point—verb, resource, and parameter values. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Ideal length for a simple tool.

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 only one parameter and an output schema (content unknown), the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. It does not explain whether the deletion applies to the current section or the entire document, nor does it mention the effect on linked footers or headers. The sibling tools (e.g., edit_header_footer) suggest more complex interactions, but no additional context is provided.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists the allowed values for the location parameter (default, first, even), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify if these values are case-sensitive or whether they correspond to specific footer types (e.g., first page, even pages).

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 deletes a footer and specifies the location parameter with three values: default, first, or even. This distinguishes it from delete_header (different resource). However, it does not explain what 'default' or 'even' means in context, leaving ambiguity about scope (e.g., current section vs. entire document).

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 like edit_header_footer or delete_header. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., document must be open, footer must exist) or exclusions (e.g., cannot delete footers from specific sections).

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