zotero_plan_paper_import

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that exact identifiers may match existing items, title-only matches are always ambiguous, and the tool reports specific action categories. It also explicitly states it never touches PDFs, adding meaningful non-obvious behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. Each of its four sentences adds distinct value: scope, matching semantics, report output, and safety guarantee. No wasted words.

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?

Despite the rich schema and annotations, the description fully captures the tool's key constraints and behavior: read-only, up to 50 papers, matching nuances, action categories, and non-interference with PDFs. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed here.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining how item identifiers (DOI, PMID, PMCID, arXiv) affect matching, the ambiguity of title-only matches, and the 50-paper limit. It does not enumerate every item field, but the schema's own property descriptions provide structural details.

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?

Description clearly states specific verb 'preflight' and resource 'papers' with a scope of up to 50 items. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing read-only behavior and listing concrete report actions, which contrasts with zotero_apply_paper_import.

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 establishes clear context: it is a read-only preflight that reports actions and never touches PDFs, implying use before zotero_apply_paper_import. However, it stops short of explicitly stating when to use it versus alternatives, so it does not fully meet the 'explicit when/when-not' bar.

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