zotero_resolve_collection

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses critical fail-closed behavior for missing, duplicate, deleted, or malformed collections, and explicitly states that similar candidates are never selected automatically.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the action and inputs; the second covers failure behavior and ambiguity policy. No filler or redundancy.

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 rich schema (oneOf, per-parameter descriptions) and strong annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's exact-match resolution, failure modes, and ambiguity handling. The output schema handles return value documentation, so no gaps are apparent.

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 already provides full descriptions for key, name, and path, with 100% coverage. The description only restates these parameter types without adding new semantic detail, so it does not improve upon the 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 tool resolves an exact Zotero collection using a key, globally unique name, or full path. It distinguishes itself from fuzzy matching by emphasizing exactness and noting similar candidates are never auto-selected.

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 implies when to use: when an exact identifier is available, and warns that duplicate or ambiguous inputs fail closed. It clearly separates this from suggestion-based matching, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool.

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