delete_footnote_from_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a deletion operation but doesn't mention whether this is destructive/permanent, whether it modifies the original file or creates a new one, what permissions are required, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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?

Two concise sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and identification options. No wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 destructive operation with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the mutation behavior, file handling (in-place vs new file), error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. The agent would struggle to use this correctly without additional 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 and 4 parameters, the description adds some value by explaining the two identification methods (ID vs search_text). However, it doesn't cover filename or output_filename parameters, nor does it explain the relationship between footnote_id and search_text (mutually exclusive? both required?). The description partially compensates but leaves significant gaps.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('footnote from a Word document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'delete_footnote_robust' - both appear to delete footnotes, so the distinction isn't explained.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_footnote_robust' or other deletion tools. The description mentions two identification methods but doesn't explain when to choose one over the other or any prerequisites for usage.

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