word_insert_citation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the citation is a real Zotero field refreshed by Word, that a .docx.bak backup is written on every change, and that style is applied only if no Zotero style is set. It does not mention error conditions or permission requirements, but the disclosed behaviors meaningfully go beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and key behavioral facts, then systematically lists parameters in a readable Args block. Every sentence adds information; there is no redundancy or filler. The length is justified by the 10 parameters and complex side effects.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with 10 parameters and an output schema. The description covers preconditions (closed document), side effects (backup), parameter selection guidance (anchor_text vs paragraph_index), and behavior relevant to output (refresh/reformat semantics). With the output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 fully explain parameters. It does: each arg is described with its role, source (zotero_search, word_document_outline), and example values ('45-47', 'see also'). This is comprehensive and directly compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Insert a live Zotero citation field into a Word document.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like word_insert_bibliography (bibliography vs citation) and word_remove_citation. The field's live/Zotero nature is also emphasized, making the tool's core purpose 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 gives strong context for when to use the tool: document must be closed, item_keys come from zotero_search, anchor_text should come from word_document_outline, and anchor_text/paragraph_index are alternatives. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer a sibling tool (e.g., word_set_citation_style), so it stops short of a full 5.

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