add_footnote_to_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Add a footnote' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like: whether this modifies the original file or creates a copy, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates and is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral implications, parameter details, error handling, or what happens after the operation. Given the complexity of document editing and the many sibling tools, more context is needed for effective tool selection and use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 undocumented parameters, the description provides minimal parameter guidance. It mentions 'specific paragraph' which hints at paragraph_index, and 'footnote' which hints at footnote_text, but doesn't explain what filename expects (path? document name?), how paragraph_index works (0-based? 1-based?), or any constraints on footnote_text. The description doesn't adequately compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 a footnote') and target ('to a specific paragraph in a Word document'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its many sibling footnote tools (like add_endnote_to_document, add_footnote_after_text, etc.), which would require more specific differentiation.

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 its many alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for footnotes and related document operations, there's no indication of when this specific 'add_footnote_to_document' is appropriate versus other footnote tools or general document editing tools.

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