create_note

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explicitly stating that the tool 'never touches the parent item's own fields or version' and that it creates a 'brand-new note item with its own key.' It also explains that 'Zotero derives the note's display title from the first line of this content,' adding behavioral context about how the note will be presented.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The additional details about content and tags are relevant and earn their place, though the 'Safe:' aside is informal and could be integrated more elegantly. It remains concise and readable.

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 simple create operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the purpose, safety guarantees, and param semantics. It lacks explicit error handling or return value descriptions, but these are not critical for a well-scoped create tool given the annotations.

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 coverage, the description compensates by explaining the content format ('Zotero-flavored HTML') and tags ('plain tag strings'). It does not explicitly describe parent_key, but its meaning is clear from the phrase 'child of an existing item.' Overall, the description adds significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: 'Add a new note as a child of an existing item (e.g. a research note attached to a journalArticle).' This specifies the verb (add), resource (note), and relationship (child of existing item), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_notes and update_note.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: creating a brand-new note attached to an existing item. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., update_note for modifying existing notes), but the example and wording imply the appropriate use case without confusion.

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