Add Endnote

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

The description implies mutation (adding content) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as what happens if the paragraph index is out of range, whether the document must already exist, or if the tool modifies the document in place. No annotations supplement this information.

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 unnecessary words. However, it sacrifices valuable detail for brevity.

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 three required parameters, lack of output schema, and absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or preconditions (e.g., document must be open).

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 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameters. However, it only mentions 'specific paragraph' without detailing any of the three required parameters (filename, paragraph_index, endnote_text). The parameter semantics are completely absent.

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 ('add an endnote') and the target ('to a specific paragraph in a Word document'), distinguishing it from sibling footnote tools. However, it does not specify the indexing scheme for the paragraph (e.g., zero-based vs. one-based), which slightly reduces clarity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use endnotes over footnotes or other sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, nor is there a comparison with alternatives like 'add_footnote_to_document'.

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