add_footnote

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive. The description adds awareness that footnote references ([^N]) are display-only in read_file output, which helps manage expectations. However, it does not discuss other behaviors like numbering adjustments or side effects beyond adding a footnote.

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 very concise—two sentences plus a brief note—and front-loaded with the core purpose. 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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain return values. It covers the main functionality but omits prerequisites (e.g., file must be open) and error scenarios. It is adequate for a simple tool but could be more thorough.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description restates some schema info (e.g., after_text is optional) but adds minimal new meaning. It clarifies that text is the footnote body, but this is already in 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 adds a footnote anchored to a paragraph. It specifies the optional positioning via after_text. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like update_footnote or delete_footnote, relying mostly on the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The note about [^N] markers provides context for read_file but does not aid in choosing this tool over siblings.

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