convert_footnotes_to_endnotes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the conversion action without detailing side effects (e.g., irreversible modification, removal of footnotes) or requirements (e.g., document permissions). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to grasp quickly.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose. However, it omits important context like whether the conversion is in-place or returns a new document, and lacks any parameter explanation. It is minimally viable but not fully informative.

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?

The input schema has a single parameter (doc_id) with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, providing no additional meaning beyond the schema. For a required parameter, this is a critical 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Convert') and the resource ('all footnotes to endnotes'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_footnote or delete_footnotes_by_anchor, as no other tool performs this conversion.

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 the tool is used when footnotes need to be converted to endnotes, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives (e.g., manual deletion/addition), but the use case is straightforward.

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