add_footnote_after_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the function 'ensures footnotes display correctly as superscript,' which adds some behavioral context about formatting. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this modifies the original file, what permissions are needed, error handling, or how it interacts with existing footnotes. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and a formatting assurance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence ('This enhanced function ensures...') is somewhat vague and could be more precise, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, usage distinctions from siblings, and detailed behavioral context. The mention of superscript formatting is helpful but insufficient for a tool that modifies documents and has multiple similar alternatives.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description does not explain any of the four parameters (filename, search_text, footnote_text, output_filename), such as what they represent, expected formats, or how 'output_filename' relates to the operation. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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's purpose: 'Add a footnote after specific text with proper superscript formatting.' It specifies the verb ('Add'), resource ('footnote'), and location ('after specific text'), and mentions formatting. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'add_footnote_before_text' or other footnote-related tools, which would be needed for a score of 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. With multiple sibling tools like 'add_footnote_before_text', 'add_footnote_enhanced', and 'add_footnote_to_document', there is no indication of when this specific 'after text' version is appropriate or what differentiates it from other footnote-adding tools.

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