word_remove_citation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It explains the keep_text behavior (whether the rendered citation remains as plain text), but does not disclose other potential side effects, such as whether the document is modified in place or requires saving.

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, front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a structured Args list. No unnecessary 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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description covers the operation and parameters sufficiently. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly say whether the file is overwritten or a new file is created, but this is implied by 'remove from a document.'

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 0% description coverage, but the description's Args block adds meaningful explanations for all three parameters: document_path gives the file path, citation_id references word_list_citations, and keep_text explains the plain-text behavior. This fully compensates for the schema gaps.

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: 'Remove a Zotero citation field from a document.' This is a specific verb (remove) and resource (citation field), and it distinguishes from siblings like word_insert_citation and word_set_citation_style.

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 a clear prerequisite by stating citation_id should come from word_list_citations. This gives context on when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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