add_endnote_to_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions adding an endnote but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this modifies the document in place, requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., invalid paragraph index), or what the expected outcome is. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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?

For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, prerequisites, and doesn't compensate for the missing structured information, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 for undocumented parameters. It only implies 'paragraph_index' and 'endnote_text' through context but doesn't explain what 'filename' refers to (e.g., path, document name), how paragraph indexing works, or format expectations for endnote text. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Add an endnote') and target ('to a specific paragraph in a Word document'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_footnote_to_document' or other footnote-related tools, which would require a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like footnote tools or other document annotation methods. It states what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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