Customize Footnote Style

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

Annotations lack any behavioral hints, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool modifies the document but does not disclose whether changes are destructive, reversible, or if it affects existing footnotes. The behavioral impact is underspecified.

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 concise at 9 words in one sentence. However, conciseness sacrifices informativeness. It is front-loaded but lacks structure or detail, earning a good score for brevity but not for completeness.

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 complexity (5 parameters, many sibling tools, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not cover return values, side effects, or parameter interactions. The tool appears usable only with strong schema defaults, but the description adds little 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%, so the description must clarify parameter meaning. The description only mentions 'numbering and formatting' but does not explain the parameters (numbering_format, start_number, font_name, font_size), their defaults, or valid values. The agent gets no extra help beyond the 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 states the verb 'customize' and the resource 'footnote numbering and formatting' in a Word document. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that add or delete footnotes, as seen in the sibling list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other footnote-related tools. It fails to mention prerequisites, such as requiring existing footnotes, or when not to use it.

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