delete_footnote

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses that both the footnote definition and the in-body reference are removed, which is good. However, it does not discuss side effects like renumbering, error handling for non-existent IDs, or required permissions.

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?

Extremely concise: four lines total, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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 simple delete tool, it covers the core action but lacks information on return values, error conditions, and idempotency. The presence of an output schema is noted but not described, missing an opportunity to complete the picture.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section explains 'footnote_id: The numeric ID of the footnote to delete', adding clarity beyond the schema's title and type. This compensates well for the gap.

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?

Description clearly states 'Delete a footnote and its in-body reference' with specific details about removing the definition from footnotes.xml and the reference run from the document body. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_footnote, update_footnote, and validate_footnotes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, such as ensuring the footnote exists or handling potential conflicts. Lacks context on when not to use or preferred conditions.

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