customize_footnote_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'customize' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether changes are destructive to existing footnotes, permission requirements, error conditions, or what happens when applied to documents without footnotes. 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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information, making every word earn its place.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or how it interacts with existing document structure. Given the complexity and lack of structured documentation, the description should provide much more 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 5 parameters, the description doesn't compensate at all. It mentions 'numbering and formatting' which hints at some parameters, but provides no specifics about what 'numbering_format' accepts, what 'font_name' values are valid, or how 'start_number' interacts with existing footnotes. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 ('customize') and target ('footnote numbering and formatting in a Word document'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling footnote-related tools like 'add_footnote_enhanced' or 'validate_document_footnotes', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 related to footnotes (e.g., add_footnote_enhanced, delete_footnote_from_document, validate_document_footnotes), there's no indication of whether this tool is for initial setup, modification, or other specific contexts.

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