set_footnote_style

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Configure footnote style' without mentioning mutation effects, required document state, whether it overwrites existing style settings, or whether it applies to selected footnotes or the entire document. This is a meaningful gap for a style-changing operation.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the main action and resource are front-loaded. It is concise, though slightly too terse to substitute for missing schema-level documentation.

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 a tool with five parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions, and opaque integer-valued parameters, this one-line description is insufficient. The presence of an output schema removes some need to describe return values, but the description still lacks essential detail about valid enum-like values and behavioral constraints.

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%, and the description only adds the general categories 'numbering' and 'separator'. While that weakly maps to number_type/number_format and separator_type/separator_length, it does not explain what the integer values mean, what combinations are valid, or how defaults behave, leaving the agent without enough semantic information to confidently populate parameters.

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 states a specific verb, 'Configure', and a clear resource, 'footnote style', while naming two concrete aspects: numbering and separator. This is clear enough about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling set_numbering_style or other style tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_numbering_style, set_paragraph_style, or set_text_style. There is no explicit context, condition, or exclusion, so an agent is left to infer usage solely from the resource name.

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