delete_endnote

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

Since annotations are absent, the description bears full burden. It discloses that both the definition and reference are removed, which adds value. However, it does not describe error behavior (e.g., invalid endnote_id) or side effects (e.g., renumbering of remaining endnotes).

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 concise with three sentences covering action, internal details, and parameter. It is front-loaded with the primary action. A small improvement could be separating the parameter description more clearly, but overall it is efficient.

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?

With an output schema present, return value documentation is not needed. The description covers the operation and parameter adequately. However, it omits error handling, idempotency, and prerequisites (e.g., document must be open). Given tool complexity, it is moderately complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides a one-line explanation for endnote_id ("The numeric ID of the endnote to delete."), which adds meaning beyond the schema type. However, it does not clarify how to obtain the ID, leaving some ambiguity.

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 explicitly states it deletes an endnote and its in-body reference, using specific verbs like 'delete' and 'removes,' and details the internal operations (endnotes.xml and reference run). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like add_endnote and update_endnote.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_footnote, validate_endnotes). No mention of prerequisites, such as requiring the document to be open or the endnote id must exist.

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