inject_citations

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches metadata automatically, replaces tags, appends a bibliography, outputs a new file with '_cited' suffix, requires Word/Zotero refresh, and warns about num attribute requirements for numbered styles. This is thorough and non-misleading.

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 extremely well-structured with clear headers (WORKFLOW, CITATION STYLES, ZCITE TAG FORMAT, OUTPUT, NOTE). Every section serves a distinct purpose, and the core purpose is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two parameters, multi-step workflow, style-specific constraints, and no output schema), the description covers all essential context: prerequisites, step-by-step instructions, tag syntax with examples, output format, and fallback guidance. The agent has everything needed to invoke and execute this tool correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial meaning: it explains style-dependent behavior (apa vs numbered styles), the required num attribute, and the exact meaning of file_path in the workflow. It also documents the full zcite tag format with attribute details, far exceeding the schema's brief parameter 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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Replace <zcite> placeholder tags in a .docx file with native Zotero field codes.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_items_by_doi or import_pdf_to_zotero, as it focuses purely on citation injection into a Word document.

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 an explicit WORKFLOW section that sequences this tool after item-key collection and .docx generation, plus a final NOTE saying to prefer the skill workflow when available and that this tool is the primary path otherwise. It also instructs to ask the user for citation style before generating, covering when-to-use and alternatives.

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