edit_endnote

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses auto-backup slot behavior, the exact effect of backup=False, atomic validated saving, and refusal when the document is open in Word.

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 sentences, each contributing essential information with no fluff. The action and addressing modes are front-loaded, followed by side effects and constraints.

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 what the tool does, how endnotes are targeted, backup behavior, save guarantees, and a key safety condition. Minor gaps remain around what happens if both note_id and position are supplied, but the output schema handles return expectations.

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 compensates meaningfully: it explains note_id vs. position addressing, 1-based positions, and the backup flag's rotation behavior. file_path is not described, but it is self-explanatory from the tool name and document context.

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 opens with a specific verb and object — 'Rewrite an endnote's text' — and clearly states two addressing modes. It is distinct from sibling tools like edit_footnote and add_endnote because it is explicitly scoped to endnotes and existing text.

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 context of use is clear: this is for rewriting an existing endnote's text. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the domain-specific wording makes the intended use obvious enough.

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