create_saved_search

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the operation is safe, never touches existing keys, and that invalid condition/operator combinations raise an error naming the problem. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and error 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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides essential information: what the tool does, its safety guarantee, and the required parameter format. No filler or redundancy; appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 2-parameter schema with no output schema, the description covers the critical aspects: purpose, safety, condition format, and error handling. It lacks explicit success return values or library scope, but these are not required given the simple create operation and existing annotations. Overall, it is complete enough for reliable 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate and does so effectively, especially for the conditions parameter. It specifies the exact keys ("condition", "operator", "value"), provides an example, and explains that valid combinations are Zotero-defined and error propagation. The name parameter is left self-explanatory, which is acceptable given its simplicity.

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 with a specific verb and resource: "Create a new saved search." It further distinguishes from mutation of existing resources by emphasizing "creates a brand-new key, never touches an existing one," which separates it from update/delete operations.

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 implies usage (for creating a new saved search) and the safety note explains it won't affect existing resources, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to other creation tools like create_collection or create_item. Usage context is present but not elaborated.

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