add_footnote_by_anchor

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Add a footnote' without revealing side effects (document modification), error behavior when anchor text is missing, or whether it appends vs. replaces. Parameters like occurrence and matching options are omitted, leaving the agent blind to critical behavior.

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 extremely short but at the cost of completeness. While concise, it lacks essential detail; it is under-specified rather than efficiently front-loaded. Every sentence should earn its place—this one does not convey enough.

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 complexity (7 parameters, many sibling tools, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It should cover key parameters, distinguish from similar tools (e.g., add_footnote, add_endnote_by_anchor), and explain return values or confirmations. It fails on all fronts.

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 0%, so the description should explain each parameter. It only hints at 'position' via 'after/before', but ignores doc_id, anchor_text, text, occurrence, match_case, and whole_word. This adds virtually no meaning beyond the raw 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 indicates the tool adds a footnote relative to an anchor text, specifying 'after/before'. Among siblings like add_footnote and add_endnote_by_anchor, it distinguishes by targeting anchor text and note type. However, it could be more precise about how the anchor text is located (e.g., first occurrence, exact match).

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 context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_footnote (which might add unconditionally) or add_endnote_by_anchor. It fails to mention prerequisites like document existence or anchor text presence, and offers no guidance on choosing 'after' vs 'before'.

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