Add an item to Zotero from a DOI

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the Crossref lookup, the dry_run option that 'fetch and show the metadata without writing anything,' and the confirmation return with the new item key and APA rendering. This is helpful for an agent deciding whether a write will occur.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a clear Args section and Returns section. Every sentence adds information, with the most important action stated first and parameter details neatly 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?

For a tool with four straightforward parameters and no nested objects, the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, dry-run behavior, and return format. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing, and the output schema is also available for additional detail.

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?

The input schema provides only parameter titles with 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: doi with or without the https://doi.org/ prefix, optional collection_key, tags as comma-separated, and dry_run as a fetch-only mode. This gives the agent all details needed to construct valid arguments.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Look a DOI up on Crossref and save the resulting item to Zotero.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling zotero_add_item by identifying the DOI-lookup mechanism as the defining feature.

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 clearly implies the usage context: use when you have a DOI and want to add the corresponding item to Zotero. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as using zotero_add_item for manual entry, but the DOI-focused action provides clear context.

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