write_cited_document

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, including the [@ITEM_KEY] citation syntax and the 'live Zotero citations' behavior. However, it does not disclose whether an existing file at output_path is overwritten, what happens if Zotero is unavailable, or any other side effects of writing the file.

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 and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by the citation syntax and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: input format, citation mechanism, output artifact, and when to choose a sibling tool. Minor gaps such as output_path path expectations and overwrite behavior prevent a 5.

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 compensate for both parameters. It does clarify that content is markdown text containing [@ITEM_KEY] citation markers, but it leaves output_path unexplained beyond its name, without format or constraint details.

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 names a specific verb and resource: creating a new Word document from markdown text with live Zotero citations. It also distinguishes itself from insert_citations, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 when to use this tool: when writing a new document from scratch such as a literature review or manuscript draft. It also names the alternative insert_citations for adding citations to an existing document.

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