add_citation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It is clear that the tool appends an in-text citation and that chicago-notes renders it as a footnote, but it does not disclose other behavioral details such as mutation effects, idempotency, or failure conditions.

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: a direct action sentence followed by one conditional clarification. No filler words or repeated schema details.

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 8 parameters, 3 required, and no annotations, this description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without guessing the meanings of `path` and `paragraph_index`. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but invocation essentials are missing.

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%, and the description only adds meaning for `tag` and `style`. Required parameters like `path` and `paragraph_index` and optional ones like `mode`, `page`, `prefix`, and `out` receive no semantic explanation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Append' with the resource 'in-text citation for `tag` to a paragraph', making the core purpose clear. The chicago-notes nuance adds precision, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from add_footnote.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like add_footnote or add_source. The chicago-notes line hints at footnote behavior but does not tell the agent how to choose between add_citation and add_footnote.

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