delete_footnote

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It explains that both the definition and in-body reference are removed, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose side effects like renumbering of subsequent footnotes, permission requirements, or error behavior. For a destructive mutation, more transparency is expected.

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 the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and a clear Args section. No superfluous words. Could be slightly more streamlined, but overall 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core behavior adequately. It explains the dual effect on definition and reference. However, it lacks context on how to obtain the footnote_id (e.g., from get_footnotes) and does not mention edge cases like missing footnotes or document state prerequisites.

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 only parameter, footnote_id, is described as 'The numeric ID of the footnote to delete' in the Args section, adding meaning beyond the schema's type 'integer'. Since schema coverage is 0%, this description compensates well by clarifying the nature and origin of the ID.

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 it deletes a footnote and its in-body reference, specifying the two affected locations (footnotes.xml and the footnoteReference run). It distinguishes from siblings like add_footnote or update_footnote by focusing on deletion.

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_paragraph or delete_text) or prerequisites. For example, it doesn't mention that the footnote must exist or what happens if the ID is invalid. Siblings like update_footnote or validate_footnotes are not referenced.

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