zotero_update_search_database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It covers dependency requirements ([semantic] package, embedding provider/config.json), performance characteristics (seconds vs minutes), default behavior (incremental), and progress reporting via MCP context. Only minor gaps: no error behavior or failure modes, otherwise strong.

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 with the core purpose and usage triggers, then dives into behavior and examples. Slightly long but every sentence earns its place — context triggers, performance notes, dependencies, and example all add distinct value. Not overlong for the complexity of the tool.

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 tool's complexity (side effects on a database, model config, performance differences), the description is quite complete despite rich schema and an output schema. Covers prerequisites, when to run, cost profiles, and how to verify. Minor gap: no mention of error recovery if embedding provider is misconfigured, but this is a strong description overall.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining force_rebuild's semantics (re-embeds ALL items, use when changing model or recovering from corruption) and limit's purpose (smoke-testing), plus the incremental-vs-full behavioral contrast. This elevates it above baseline.

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 'Build or refresh the semantic search embedding database from Zotero items' — a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referencing zotero_add_item, zotero_get_search_database_status, and the update/rebuild distinction, making its role among the 35 sibling tools clear.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use triggers (first install, after zotero_add_item, after direct desktop additions) and when-not-to (incremental vs force_rebuild slow full rebuild), plus a reference to the status-checking sibling tool. This is model guidance for selection.

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