word_set_citation_style

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

The description discloses that it writes Zotero's document-preferences fields and explains the post-action refresh step, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. Since no annotations are provided, this transparency is valuable, though it omits potential side effects like overwriting existing styles or permission requirements.

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 an intro sentence, a behavior paragraph, and a concise Args section. Every sentence adds value and nothing is redundant.

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 simple setter tool, the description covers the operation, parameters, and expected outcome. It could mention error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), but overall it is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 description fully compensates for the schema's 0% coverage by explaining each parameter: document_path, style (with examples and a pointer to zotero_list_styles), and locale (with examples). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 'Set which CSL style a Word document uses' – a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings. It also adds context about Zotero preferences and the refresh workflow.

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?

It explains the workflow (run then refresh in Word) and cross-references zotero_list_styles for finding styles, which provides useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like word_insert_citation, nor does it mention exclusions.

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