Add Footnote Enhanced

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

Annotations provide no destructive or readOnly hints, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'guaranteed superscript formatting' and 'proper style handling', suggesting style application, but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, or has side effects on other footnotes.

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 short at two sentences, but it could be more informative without being verbose. It front-loads the key feature (superscript formatting) but wastes potential by not 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 and minimal annotations, the description should provide more context like preconditions, return values, or error conditions. It is missing details about the output_filename parameter and how the tool interacts with the document. For a 4-parameter tool, it is insufficiently complete.

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%, requiring the description to explain parameters. It only hints at 'paragraph_index' via 'end of a specific paragraph', but fails to describe 'filename', 'footnote_text', or 'output_filename'. No format, defaults, or constraints are provided, leaving the agent guessing.

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 uses a specific verb 'adds footnote' and identifies the resource (footnote). It mentions 'enhanced' and 'guaranteed superscript formatting,' providing some differentiation from siblings like 'add_footnote_to_document' or 'add_footnote_after_text'. However, 'enhanced' is vague and doesn't fully clarify the unique value.

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 states 'adds footnote at the end of a specific paragraph', implying it's for paragraph-level footnotes by index. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. siblings (e.g., add_footnote_to_document, add_footnote_after_text) nor exclude any scenarios. No alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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