add_items_by_doi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that DOIs are resolved via content negotiation, the correct item type is set automatically, and the return value includes successes (with item_key and title) and failures. It also mentions OA PDF attachment behavior. Missing edge cases like invalid DOI handling, but for the core behavior it is quite transparent.

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 clear sections: main purpose, when-to-use comparison, and workflow tips. Every sentence provides actionable information without filler. Though longer than typical, the length is justified by the tool's complexity and differentiation needs.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly states the return format (successful items with item_key and title, plus failures). It also provides workflow tips for follow-up actions (get_items_details, inject_citations) and covers mixed-batches. This makes the description self-contained for most usage scenarios.

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 descriptions already cover all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra context: explains that DOIs are resolved automatically, clarifies that collection_key comes from create_collection/get_collections (already in schema), and strongly advises keeping auto_attach_pdf enabled unless errors occur. This goes beyond the schema's descriptive text.

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 opens with 'Add items to your Zotero library by resolving DOIs' – a specific verb+resource+method. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling add_items tool by stating it works with ANY DOI-type item and auto-resolves metadata. This clearly conveys the tool's unique role.

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?

A dedicated 'WHEN TO USE vs add_items' section provides explicit decision criteria: use this when the item HAS a DOI, use add_items when it doesn't or when metadata overrides are needed, and gives mixed-batch guidance. This is exemplary usage guidance with clear alternatives.

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