update_footnote

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that changes emit native OOXML tracked changes (w:ins/w:del). Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description clarifies the revisionable nature, enhancing transparency.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. First sentence states the core purpose; second sentence adds a critical behavioral detail. Every word is purposeful.

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 tool with three simple parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It covers purpose and a key behavioral trait (tracked changes), making it complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. It provides general context but does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 updates the text content of an existing footnote. It uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('footnote'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_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 implies usage for updating footnote text but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The behavioral note about tracked changes is helpful but does not provide direct usage guidance.

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