convert_notes

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for side effects. It discloses Word's automatic renumbering, the backup slots and rotation behavior, atomic validated saving, and refusal to run while Word has the document open—strong coverage for a mutating tool.

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?

Four tightly packed clauses deliver core operation, parameter rules, and side effects with no filler. Information is front-loaded: operation first, then selection semantics, then behavioral caveats.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers selection semantics, renumbering, backup behavior, save atomicity, and the Word-open refusal. The existence of an output schema relieves it from documenting return values.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by defining direction's allowed values, the note_id/position selection rule for one note vs all, and the backup flag's precise effect. file_path is left to self-evidence, which is acceptable.

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 opening clause "Convert footnotes to endnotes or back" names a precise operation and resource, immediately distinguishing it from sibling footnote/endnote tools. The direction syntax and one-note-vs-all scoping make its function unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to supply note_id or position (ONE note) and when to omit them (ALL), which is the central usage decision. It doesn't name alternative tools, but no sibling performs the same conversion, so the context is still clear.

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