Add Note

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write operation but not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the note is created as a child of the specified item, and HTML formatting is supported. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether adding a note modifies the parent item's metadata or triggers sync), but the child-relationship detail is meaningful beyond the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, with the core action and key details (child relationship, HTML support) front-loaded. The Args section is redundant with the schema but adds semantic context. It earns its place, though the Args block could be trimmed since the schema already lists parameters.

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 write tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what the note is attached to, how content is formatted, and how to target a library. It does not mention error conditions (e.g., invalid item_key) or whether the note is appended to existing notes, but the output schema and annotations cover some of the remaining context. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 does explain the two required parameters (item_key and note) with clear semantics: item_key is the parent Zotero item key, note is the content (plain text or HTML). However, it does not explain the optional library_id and library_type parameters beyond the general library-targeting guidance, which is partially covered in the usage section. The description adds meaning for the required params but leaves the optional ones under-specified.

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 ('Add a note to a Zotero item') and the specific resource (Zotero item), and distinguishes it from siblings like update_note and delete_note by specifying that the note is created as a child of the specified item. The verb 'add' plus the resource 'note' is specific and 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 for when to use this tool: when adding a note to a Zotero item. It also gives explicit guidance on library targeting ('Pass both library_id and library_type to target another library; omit both to use the configured default'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like update_note or delete_note, so it falls short of a 5.

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