add_footnote_robust

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 'robust validation', 'Word compliance', and 'comprehensive error handling', which hints at behavioral traits like validation steps and error management. However, it lacks details on what validation entails, what errors are handled, whether it modifies documents destructively, or any rate limits or permissions needed, leaving 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 brief and front-loaded, with two sentences that convey key points efficiently. There's no wasted text, but it could be more structured by explicitly stating the tool's action and context upfront. It's appropriately sized for the information provided, though under-specified in content.

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 of a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly. The mention of 'production-ready' and error handling adds some context but doesn't fill the gaps in parameter understanding or operational guidance.

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%, meaning none of the 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about parameters like 'filename', 'search_text', 'paragraph_index', etc., failing to compensate for the lack of schema details. This leaves the agent with no semantic understanding of what each parameter does or how to use them effectively.

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 states the tool adds footnotes with validation and Word compliance, which gives a general purpose, but it's vague about the specific action and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'add_footnote_enhanced' or 'add_footnote_to_document'. It mentions 'production-ready' and 'comprehensive error handling' but lacks specificity about what makes it robust compared to alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions it's 'production-ready' and has 'comprehensive error handling', which implies usage in critical scenarios, but it doesn't state when to choose this over siblings like 'add_footnote_enhanced' or 'add_footnote_to_document', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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