zotero_add_by_doi

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

Even without annotations, the description thoroughly covers behavioral traits: metadata resolution from CrossRef, attach_mode behavior with PDF download options, potential upload failure due to free-tier quota, requirement for writable library, and post-action database update. No contradictions.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, parameter details, behavioral notes, and an example. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 4 parameters, lack of annotations, presence of output schema, and complexity of behavior, the description is complete. It covers prerequisites, limitations, side effects, and post-action steps, making it fully actionable for an AI agent.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's format, defaults, and behavior. doi format flexibility, collections as keys or names, tags as strings, and attach_mode with explicit values are all clarified.

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 clearly states the tool adds an item to Zotero library by DOI, resolving rich metadata from CrossRef. It distinguishes from siblings like zotero_add_by_url and zotero_add_from_file, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly recommends this as the first choice for DOIs, provides clear alternatives for arXiv/URLs and local PDFs, and notes the need to run zotero_update_search_database after. This leaves no ambiguity about when to use which tool.

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