cito_to_wikidata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states 'It writes nothing to Wikidata,' explains that it returns `quickstatements` for human submission, details the exact Wikidata properties used, and emphasizes 'Never submit it on their behalf.' It also discloses item creation rules, DOI/ORCID lookup behavior, Zenodo concept DOI handling, and the `pending` re-run case.

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 long but front-loaded and dense with relevant operational detail. Every sentence contributes, though the density of constraints and edge cases could be made slightly easier to scan with more explicit structure.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is complete: it covers purpose, prerequisites, input modes, output shape, submission responsibility, item-creation behavior, title-quality caveats, and the `pending` re-run case.

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 compensate, and it does: `cito_uris` are the CiTO nanopub URIs to mirror, while `published_path` points to a `nanopubs/PUBLISHED.md` ledger to take every CiTO nanopub. The 'or' framing clarifies the alternative input modes.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Mirror published CiTO citations into Wikidata — as a batch for a human to submit.' It makes clear this is a conversion/export step rather than a direct Wikidata write, distinguishing it from direct mutation tools.

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 explicitly says to run the tool after `verify_chain` is green and explains the two input modes: pass CiTO nanopub URIs or `published_path`. It does not explicitly compare against other sibling tools such as `wikidata_lookup`, but the prerequisite and input guidance are strong.

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