insert_citations

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

Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructiveness; the description adds useful behavioral detail by stating that markers get replaced with field codes and that existing formatting, styles, images, and layout are preserved. It stops short of explaining whether the file is modified in place or whether output_path changes that behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main function, followed by routing guidance and preservation guarantees. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does, when to use it, and what side effects to expect. The only notable gap is the absent explanation of output_path semantics, which matters slightly for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds clear meaning for document_path by describing the .docx with markers, but it does not explain output_path at all, including what a null default means. This is a partial compensation for the schema's lack of 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?

States a specific verb ('Insert'), resource ('live Zotero citation field codes into an existing Word document'), and mechanism (replaces [@ITEM_KEY] markers with Zotero field codes). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from write_cited_document, so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to add citations to a document the user already has.' It also names the alternative for the contrasting case: 'to create a NEW .docx from markdown instead, use write_cited_document.'

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