add_endnote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses auto-backup behavior, the precise effect of backup=False, atomic validated saving, and the refusal condition for Word-open documents. These are meaningful operational details beyond the raw schema.

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?

Two dense sentences carry purpose, mechanics, backup behavior, save guarantees, and a lock-related refusal condition without filler. Referencing add_footnote compresses a lot of shared mechanics into one phrase.

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?

The description covers the core action, anchor semantics, backup behavior, save validation, and the Word-open refusal, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. The main remaining gap is the undocumented occurrence parameter, and the description relies on the agent knowing add_footnote's mechanics to be fully 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains anchor_text semantically and clarifies the backup parameter's special behavior, but it leaves note_text, occurrence, and file_path to schema names only. Occurrence is particularly under-specified since its integer semantics are not self-evident.

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 ('Add') and a precise resource ('endnote anchored after anchor_text'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling add_footnote by naming the endnote resource and the anchor mechanism. It is immediately clear what operation this tool performs.

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 phrase 'same mechanics as add_footnote' provides a usable comparison for agents that know that sibling, and 'Refuses documents open in Word' gives a concrete precondition. It does not explicitly enumerate when to prefer this over edit_endnote or delete_endnote, but the purpose is clear enough that the main usage scenario is not ambiguous.

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