note

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that insert/update/delete/settings are mutations, but says nothing about permissions, the role of the handle parameter in targeting a document, side effects on numbering/references, or what happens on failure. For an unannotated mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

Extremely compact and well front-loaded: resource name first, then a clean action-to-parameter list. It wastes no words, though the telegram-style syntax sacrifices readability and 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?

For an 18-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits how the target document is identified (handle), whether any of the many settings fields are mutually exclusive, and any indication of success/failure behavior, leaving the agent to infer far too much.

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 coverage is only 39% across 18 flat parameters, so the description needs to compensate. It does add real value by grouping parameters under each action (e.g. settings takes format/start/restart/placement/separator/spacing/prefix/suffix), which the schema does not express, but it never explains the meaning or expected format of any individual parameter.

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 opens with the resource (각주·미주 = footnote/endnote) and enumerates the four operations, so an agent immediately knows this tool manages footnote/endnote objects and is distinct from siblings like memo, field, or toc. It is a terse noun-plus-signatures form rather than a full verb+resource sentence, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

By mapping each action to its parameter set (insert uses at/kind/text, update uses target/text, etc.) it implies which action to pick for a given intent, but it never states when to choose footnote vs endnote or when this tool is preferable to memo or field. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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