cleanup_orphan_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses auto-backup behavior, the meaning of backup=False, atomic validated saving, and refusal to work on Word-locked documents. This is strong, useful behavioral context, though it does not detail the return value or no-op behavior when no orphans exist.

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 core purpose, followed by usage context and critical behavior. Every sentence adds distinct value, with no filler or repetition of the tool name or input schema.

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 zero annotations, the description covers the main operational details: what it removes, when to use it, backup semantics, save behavior, and a safety constraint. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. Minor gaps include exact behavior when no orphans exist and error handling beyond the Word refusal.

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 clarifies the backup parameter ('backup=False skips rotation only') but does not explain file_path beyond its self-evident name. The description partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions but not fully.

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 and target: 'Remove footnote/endnote definitions no body reference points to.' It precisely defines the scope (orphaned notes only) and distinguishes the tool from generic note-deletion tools like delete_footnote and delete_endnote.

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 explicit guidance: content-deleting tools already handle orphan cleanup automatically, and this tool is specifically for 'documents that arrived with orphans.' It also provides a usage constraint (refuses documents open in Word), though it does not name a specific sibling alternative.

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