note_addFootnote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the basic action ('Add') but does not describe required permissions, whether the story must be open, what happens to existing footnotes, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the amount of information provided, though the information itself is sparse. Structure is efficient.

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?

Given 8 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, no annotations, and 13% schema coverage, the description is far from complete. It provides only the core purpose and does not help an agent understand how to invoke the tool correctly beyond the basic intent.

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 very low (13%), so the description should compensate. It implies the meaning of 'storyIndex' and 'paragraphIndex' by mentioning 'a story' and 'a specific paragraph', but it omits any mention of the other six parameters (text, prefix, suffix, document_id, numberingType, startingNumber). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Add a footnote to a specific paragraph in a story'. This clearly distinguishes it from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from note_addEndnote, which adds endnotes. Still, the resource 'footnote' is specific enough for an agent to select it over unrelated tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as note_addEndnote or note_listFootnotes. There is no mention of prerequisites or context. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.

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