edit_footnote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses auto-backup behavior, the backup=False exception, atomic validated saving, and refusal for Word-open documents. This goes well beyond a bare 'update' statement, though it does not detail error responses or validation specifics.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence provides essential information. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral context: addressing, backup, atomic save, and a concrete refusal condition. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 explains the meaning and constraint of note_id vs position ('exactly one'), clarifies that position is 1-based, and interprets backup=False as skipping rotation. It does not explicitly explain file_path, but the core ambiguous parameters are addressed.

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 ('Rewrite') and resource ('a footnote's text'), and clarifies the addressing modes ('note_id or 1-based display position'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like edit_endnote or delete_footnote.

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 gives clear context on how to target a footnote and explicitly warns that Word-open documents are refused. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as edit_endnote, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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