Add Footnote After Text

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

Annotations do not include readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'ensures footnotes display correctly as superscript', which is minimal. No information about permissions, side effects, or error conditions is provided.

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 at two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the main purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explaining parameters or usage.

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, 4 parameters (3 required), and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not describe return values, parameter relationships, or how this differs from similar tools. The agent would need to infer much from context.

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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain any of the four parameters (filename, search_text, footnote_text, output_filename), leaving the agent to infer from their names alone. This is insufficient.

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 a footnote'), the target ('after specific text'), and a key characteristic ('proper superscript formatting'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_footnote_before_text and add_footnote_enhanced.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_footnote_before_text or add_footnote_enhanced. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is given, which is needed given the many sibling footnote tools.

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