remove_footer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'remove footer' implying destructive action, but does not disclose behavior when no footer exists, error conditions, or any side effects. The return description 'Success message or error' is too vague.

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 only two sentences with a terse argument list and return type. While front-loaded with the action, it omits necessary details. It is concise but at the expense of completeness, earning a middle score.

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 has one parameter, no annotations, and a simple action, the description should cover usage context and edge cases. It does not address what 'section' refers to, how to handle missing footers, or provide context relative to sibling tools. The output schema exists but description does not elaborate on return format beyond a vague message.

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 coverage is 0% but description only repeats 'section_index: Section to remove footer from'. It does not explain indexing (0-based? 1-based?), valid range, or that the parameter defaults to 0. The agent lacks critical semantic information to use the parameter correctly.

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 'Remove footer from a section' uses a specific verb 'remove' and clearly identifies the resource 'footer from a section'. This unambiguously states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like 'add_footer' or 'remove_header'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use or not use this tool, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., existence of a footer), and no comparison with alternatives. The agent receives no help in deciding when to invoke this tool.

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