add_footnote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It exceeds that burden by revealing several important behaviors: creation of note infrastructure, auto-backup behavior in .ks4w-backups with backup=False semantics, atomic validated save, and refusal on Word-open documents.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action. Every clause earns its place: positioning, infrastructure creation, backup behavior, save semantics, and the Word-open refusal. There is no filler or repeated schema information.

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 tool's complexity and the absence of annotations, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, error conditions, and data-integrity behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Nothing essential for correct invocation and expectation-setting is missing.

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 does so well for tricky parameters: 'occurrence-th match' explains occurrence, 'anchor_text' is described as the search/match target, and backup=False is clarified as skipping rotation. However, file_path and note_text are left to naming/semantic inference rather than explicit explanation.

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 and resource: 'Add a footnote anchored after the occurrence-th match of anchor_text.' This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like add_endnote, edit_footnote, and delete_footnote by describing the exact operation and positioning behavior.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: adding new footnotes, anchoring by occurrence, and auto-creating required infrastructure. It also explicitly notes a refusal condition ('Refuses documents open in Word'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for endnotes or for editing/deleting existing footnotes, so it stops short of a full 5.

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