insert_footnote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions automatic numbering and page-bottom placement, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Insert'), permission requirements, error handling (e.g., invalid index), or output format, leaving significant gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise clarification about footnote behavior. Both sentences earn their place by adding value, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 3 parameters with full schema coverage and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is minimally adequate. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., effects, errors) to be fully complete, leaving room for improvement.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (document_id, index, footnote_text). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as index constraints or text formatting rules, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Insert a footnote') and specifies the location ('at the specified index'), with additional context about footnote appearance and numbering. It distinguishes from siblings like 'insert_text' or 'add_comment' by focusing on footnotes, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'append_to_google_doc' for general text insertion, leaving usage context implied.

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