zotero_update_annotation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that position/page/sortIndex are immutable and explains tag editing semantics (wholesale vs. incremental, mutual exclusivity). However, it does not state whether only provided fields are updated (partial update) or if null values reset fields, which is a key behavioral trait. It also omits any permission or error-handling details, but these may be covered by the output 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose, then efficiently lists editable fields and constraints. The tag behavior is explained clearly in one sentence, and the non-editable fields are mentioned at the end. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 7-parameter tool and no schema descriptions, the description covers the key fields and their constraints. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, it leaves the partial-update semantics ambiguous (whether only provided fields are changed), which is important for an agent to know before invoking the tool. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 compensate. It explains text, comment, color (with hex format example), and the tags/add_tags/remove_tags relationship, including their mutual exclusivity. It does not explicitly describe annotation_key, but that is self-evident from the name. Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Update an existing Zotero annotation') and lists the editable fields (text, comment, color, tags), which distinguishes it from create/delete/other operations. It also names the non-editable fields, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 context on when to use the tool (to modify an existing annotation) and explains constraints (position/page/sortIndex are not editable). It does not explicitly name alternatives like zotero_create_annotation or zotero_delete_annotation, but the update vs. create distinction is implicit. The tag editing modes (wholesale vs. incremental) and their mutual exclusivity give practical usage guidance.

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