delete_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 the backup mechanism and location ('prev/anchor slots in .ks4w-backups'), the effect of backup=False ('skips rotation only'), the atomic validated save, and the refusal to operate on documents open in Word. This goes well beyond a generic deletion statement.

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 no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, and the second sentence packs important safety and backup behavior into an efficient block. Every sentence earns its place.

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 operation, backup behavior, and a refusal condition, but it omits the essential parameter selection logic between note_id and position. Given that the schema has 0% description coverage and this is a destructive mutation with several siblings, the definition is not fully complete for correct invocation.

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 for missing parameter explanations. It only clarifies the backup parameter ('backup=False skips rotation only') but gives no guidance on note_id versus position, how they relate, or which to supply. An agent cannot confidently choose the correct parameter without additional inference.

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: 'Delete an endnote.' It further clarifies scope by specifying 'the definition AND the body reference mark,' distinguishing this from deleting just one component. This also separates it from sibling tools like delete_footnote and edit_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 implies its use (deleting an endnote) and provides an important operational exclusion: 'Refuses documents open in Word.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over related ones such as convert_notes or validate_notes. Usage context is inferred rather than explicit.

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