word_insert_bibliography

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that existing bibliographies are replaced, that it reads all Zotero citations, and that it writes to a live field. This is valuable context. It does not mention error cases or permission requirements, but the disclosed mutation behavior is significant.

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: a one-sentence purpose summary, then behavioral details, then parameter explanations. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool, with no wasted words or repetition.

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 tool's complexity (mutation, 4 parameters, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it behaves, and what each parameter means. The presence of an output schema means return values need no explanation. Minor omissions like edge-case behavior (e.g., no citations) are acceptable but prevent a top 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?

The schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates with an Args section explaining each parameter: document_path is the .docx path, paragraph_index controls placement with omission meaning append, heading is an optional label, and style is only used if no Zotero style is set. This fully adds meaning beyond the raw 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's verb and resource: 'Insert or refresh the bibliography field'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it is built from the document's citations and writes to a live ZOTERO_BIBL field. This is specific and actionable.

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: it inserts or refreshes the bibliography and replaces an existing one, so an agent knows when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as comparing to word_list_citations or zotero_format_citation.

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