zotero_add_by_doi

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses all behavioral traits: metadata resolution from CrossRef, DOI format flexibility, collection validation and path handling, if_exists behavior, PDF download behavior (auto/none/required), quota limitations, and library mode requirements. 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 thorough and front-loaded but slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, though some could be more terse. Still, it earns its length by providing essential details without filler.

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 6 parameters and the presence of an output schema (no need to describe return values), the description covers all aspects: parameters, side effects, prerequisites, post-conditions, and edge cases. It is complete for the complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed explanations for all six parameters: doi flexibility, collections (keys, names, paths, validation), tags, attach_mode, if_exists, create_missing_collections. Includes an example call.

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 it adds an item by DOI, resolves rich metadata from CrossRef, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like zotero_add_by_url and zotero_add_from_file. It uses a specific verb ('add') and resource ('item to Zotero library by DOI').

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 says 'Use this as the FIRST choice when the user gives you a DOI' and provides alternatives for other cases (arXiv IDs/raw URLs → zotero_add_by_url; local PDF → zotero_add_from_file). It also advises running zotero_update_search_database afterwards.

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