zotero_manage_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it excels. It discloses the writable-library requirement, the append/replace behavior, the recoverable trash semantics, and the formatting preservation technique (fetch raw HTML, edit, pass back). This goes well beyond the schema fields and gives the agent a realistic picture of the tool's side effects.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the purpose, then systematically covers each action's requirements, constraints, and auth needs, ending with a useful example. For a 3-action tool with 6 parameters, this is appropriately concise and well-organized.

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?

The description covers all necessary dimensions: actions, parameter semantics, formatting preservation, writable-library prerequisites, and even an example. Since an output schema exists, return value details are not needed. The tool's complexity is fully addressed with no critical gaps.

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, and it does comprehensively. It explains item_key's dual meaning (parent key for create, note's own key for update/delete), the per-action note_text requirements, the append flag behavior, and the optional role of note_title and tags. The example also illustrates parameter values in a concrete way.

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 opens with 'Create, update, or trash a Zotero note,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It explicitly scopes to notes with 'Notes only, not items/collections/attachments,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like zotero_update_item or zotero_delete_item. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clear when-to-use context: any note create/update/delete operation. It gives exclusions ('Notes only, not items/collections/attachments') and points to helper workflows (zotero_get_notes for finding keys/HTML, zotero_authorize_local_writes for auth). This explicitly routes the agent to the correct tool and prerequisite steps.

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