zotero_add_item

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and handles it exceptionally. It reveals idempotency semantics for if_exists='file' ('reuses the item... never removing'), hard failure behavior (unknown collection spec 'fails the call rather than leaving an unfiled item'), data-quality caveats (ISBN 'noisy — verify after'; non-doi.org/arxiv.org URLs 'become a bare webpage item that is often not citable'), and the writable-library requirement. These are precisely the behaviors an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Dense but well-structured: purpose first, then per-parameter guidance in a consistent order, then routing rules, then a concrete example call. The length is justified by 8 parameters, six source types, and idempotency logic; every sentence adds operational value and none merely restates the schema.

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?

Covers every invocation-critical aspect: accepted input forms, per-source resolution behavior, multi-item handling, collection validation and failure mode, if_exists/attach_mode semantics, environment constraints, the post-call search-index step, and a worked example. Since an output schema exists, omitting return-value prose is appropriate and keeps the description complete without redundancy.

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 supply all parameter meaning, and it does comprehensively: source (multi-item lists, inline vs file path), source_type (all six enum values with routing behavior), collections (keys/names/'/'-paths and validation), if_exists (all three enum behaviors), attach_mode (all four values), create_missing_collections, and title. Only the tags parameter is left to the schema, a minor gap against 7 of 8 params richly explained.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Add item(s) to Zotero from any source' and enumerates the six accepted input types (DOI, URL, ISBN, BibTeX, CSL JSON, file). It explicitly claims the territory 'Use for every add this to Zotero request', which differentiates it from siblings like zotero_update_item, zotero_attach_file, and zotero_batch_update. The routing section further clarifies what the tool is versus what other tools handle.

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?

States when to use the tool explicitly ('Use for every add this to Zotero request') and gives strong source-selection guidance ('prefer a DOI when you have one', 'resolve to a DOI first' for arbitrary URLs). It names a required follow-up sibling (zotero_update_search_database) and a hard runtime constraint (fails in local-only mode). It stops short of explicit exclusions with named alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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