delete_footnote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the always-both deletion behavior, the backup mechanism and backup=False semantics, atomic validated saving, and that the tool refuses documents open in Word. This is rich behavioral context beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: scope first, then backup behavior, then a failure condition. No filler or repetition.

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 behavior, backup, and failure conditions well, and an output schema exists for return values. However, the central targeting parameters (note_id, position) are left unexplained, so an agent may not know how to identify which footnote to delete without extra inference.

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, but it only explains the backup parameter ('backup=False skips rotation only'). It does not explain how note_id and position select a footnote, whether they are alternatives, or what happens if both are provided. This is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a footnote') and defines exactly what is removed: 'the definition AND the body reference mark, always both.' This scope clearly distinguishes it from partial-deletion or cleanup siblings such as cleanup_orphan_notes 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 makes it clear that this tool fully removes a footnote, so usage is implied. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when only an orphaned definition should be removed or when an endnote should be deleted instead.

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