add_footnote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a meaningful side effect: 'Creates word/footnotes.xml and the FootnoteText/FootnoteReference styles on first use.' It also explains the conditional placement behavior for the anchor parameter, which adds transparency beyond the schema.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary, a conditional placement rule, and a single side-effect note. Every sentence carries useful information without padding or repetition.

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?

The description covers the core action and key side effects, but it does not fully explain the required parameters or the optional out parameter's role. Given five parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is adequate but has clear gaps in making the tool fully self-explanatory.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains the anchor parameter's behavior. It does not clarify the semantics of path, paragraph_index, text, or out, leaving the agent to guess their meanings from parameter names alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Attach a footnote to a paragraph.' This clearly states the tool's operation and differentiates it from siblings like list_footnotes, add_source, and add_citation. The additional anchor-placement detail further specifies the exact behavior.

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 implies the tool should be used when the agent needs to add a footnote to a paragraph, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as add_citation or add_source, nor does it mention any prerequisites or when not to use it. The usage context is inferred rather than directly guided.

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