zotero_merge_duplicates

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it describes the consolidation process, conflict resolution (keeper's value kept), that duplicates are moved to recoverable Trash, the dry-run safety feature, and the prerequisite for writable library access.

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 somewhat long but well-structured: main action first, then details, safety warnings, parameter explanations, and examples. Each sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 complexity (merge operation with 3 parameters and output schema), the description covers all necessary context: prerequisites, behavior, parameter formats, examples, and safety considerations. No gaps identified.

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 compensates fully. It explains keeper_key as an 8-character key of the item to keep, duplicate_keys as an array of keys (also accepts JSON string), and confirm as boolean defaulting to false. Examples illustrate correct usage.

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 merges duplicate items into a keeper, consolidating tags, collections, notes, annotations, and child items, and moves duplicates to Trash. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool zotero_find_duplicates by instructing users to first discover groups with that tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use: after finding duplicates with zotero_find_duplicates. It advises always running dry-run first, warns that it requires a writable library (fails in local-only mode), and gives examples of both dry-run and actual execution.

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