build_index

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that the tool auto-detects full build vs incremental sync, that 'both' runs graph then fulltext in sequence, and that full_rebuild forces a complete rebuild. It does not overpromise safety, consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence carries distinct useful information. The type breakdown and rebuild guidance are structured clearly without 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?

The description covers the main decision points: which type to choose, when to use the tool, and how to force a rebuild. The presence of an output schema covers return-value expectations. The only notable completeness gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It does a good job explaining 'type' values and 'full_rebuild', but it never explains the 'limit' parameter, which remains undocumented in both schema and description. This is a real gap for an agent deciding how to parameterize the call.

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 verb 'Build or update' and the resource 'indexes for your Zotero library'. It also enumerates the specific index types and what each enables, making the tool's role unambiguous relative to the sibling 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?

The description explicitly says when to use it: 'after adding new papers to enable graph queries and full-text search.' It also distinguishes the effects of each type option, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or which sibling might be an alternative, though no direct alternative exists among siblings.

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