add_footnote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention that this tool modifies the document, requires the document to be open, or what happens if the paragraph index is invalid. The description is too minimal to inform safe invocation.

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 a single sentence, which is brief but under-specified for a tool with two required parameters and no annotations. Key information is omitted, making it insufficiently helpful despite its brevity.

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 that this is a document manipulation tool with an output schema and numerous sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention return values, error scenarios, or relationship to other tools like 'open_document' or 'find_text'.

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 does not explain the meaning or constraints of 'text' (e.g., footnote content) or 'paragraph_index' (e.g., zero-based indexing, range requirements). The parameter names are largely self-explanatory but lack crucial detail like format or edge cases.

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 verb 'Add' and resource 'footnote' to a paragraph, making the basic action clear. However, with sibling tools like 'add_endnote' and 'add_native_footnote', it fails to distinguish what makes a footnote different from those, leaving the agent uncertain which tool to select.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., endnotes or native footnotes). There is no mention of prerequisites like having a document open or paragraph index constraints, leaving the agent to guess appropriate usage context.

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