add_footnote_ref

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the behavior: 'Inserts a hyperlink-wrapped footnoteReference that navigates to the same footnote as the original citation. Does not duplicate the footnote definition in footnotes.xml.' This discloses key aspects (no new definition, hyperlink wrapping), though it omits prerequisites like the footnote must exist.

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 two sentences plus a use-case sentence, all front-loaded with the essential purpose. No redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence earns 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (as per context signals), the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks parameter explanations and does not mention prerequisites (e.g., footnote must exist, para_id must be valid). The description is functional but incomplete for a 3-param tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the parameters ('para_id', 'footnote_id', 'document_handle'). 'footnote_id' is somewhat inferred, but 'para_id' and 'document_handle' lack context. The description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 subsequent reference to an existing footnote without creating a new definition.' It specifies the action (add a reference) and the resource (existing footnote), distinguishing it from sibling tool 'add_footnote' which creates a new definition.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use when the same source must be cited again in a different paragraph.' While it does not list alternatives or exclusions, the sibling list includes 'add_footnote', making the alternative implicit. The guidance is clear and actionable.

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