add_endnote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It only states the basic function and that endnotes appear at the end. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites existing endnotes, required permissions, error handling, or side effects. This is minimal 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?

The description is concise and includes an Args section and a Returns line. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but overall it is well structured and short.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the basic function and return type (success/error). However, it does not specify valid ranges for paragraph_index, behavior when index is out of bounds, or the effect on existing endnotes, which could be useful.

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?

The description lists the two parameters in the Args section but merely repeats the schema titles ('Index of the paragraph', 'Text content of the endnote'). With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds little extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (type and title). No constraints, examples, or format details are given.

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?

Clearly states the tool adds an endnote to a specific paragraph. It uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('endnote'), and distinguishes from footnotes by mentioning that endnotes appear at the end of the document, which differentiates it from sibling tools like add_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?

The description implies usage for adding endnotes, and notes that endnotes appear at the end, suggesting a difference from footnotes. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like add_footnote or add_native_footnote, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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