add_footnote

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

Beyond annotations ('destructiveHint: true'), the description details revision tracking behavior: footnote reference and text are tracked as insertions, while footnote-part creation is recorded in the save report as non-revision changes. This provides valuable context for AI agent decision-making.

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 two sentences and a note. The first sentence plainly states purpose, the second adds optional parameter. The technical note about revision tracking, while dense, is relevant for transparency. Could be slightly streamlined.

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 adequately covers what happens on invocation: tracked changes and save report details. It explains the effect of 'after_text' and the revision behavior, leaving little ambiguity for a mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantics, only clarifying that 'after_text' is optional and used for positioning. No additional depth beyond 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 verb ('Add') and resource ('footnote anchored to a paragraph'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_footnote' and 'delete_footnote'.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to add a footnote) and mentions optional positioning with 'after_text', but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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