Create Annotation

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false annotations by disclosing internal behaviors: fuzzy matching strategies, duplicate avoidance (appending comments), and contrasting color for sub-passages. It clearly indicates that existing annotations may be modified, which is valuable context. No contradiction with 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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, bullet points for matching strategies and overlap handling, and a detailed Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the layout makes it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool.

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 an 8-parameter creation tool with complex matching behavior, the description covers everything an agent needs: parameter semantics, default values, search strategies, and deduplication/overlap handling. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. This is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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%, but the description's Args section thoroughly explains all 8 parameters, including details like item_key being the parent item not the attachment, the meaning of max_l_dist (Levenshtein distance with default ~20%), and the semantics of occurrence and page_number. This fully compensates for the sparse 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 that the tool highlights a text passage in a PDF attached to a Zotero item, creating a visible annotation. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_annotation, delete_annotation, and get_annotations.

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: to create highlights based on quoted text, with strategies for fuzzy matching and overlap handling. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the usage scenario is obvious from the detailed behavior, so it earns a 4 rather than a 3.

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