zotero_process_docx

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key side effects: 'directly edits the .docx XML', 'fetches item data', 'builds field codes', 'writes the output'. It also warns about the post-processing step in Word. It doesn't mention failure modes or prerequisites like Zotero running, but it is quite transparent for an unannotated tool.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by mechanism and a summary. It is two sentences plus a summary line, which is efficient. The only minor redundancy is 'Give this tool the file path and it does everything' restating the parameter usage, but it does not waste words.

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 tool has only 2 params and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it processes, how it works, what the user must do afterwards, and the all-in-one nature. It omits potential error conditions or prerequisites, but for a simple file-processing tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters ('Path to the .docx file with citation stubs' and 'Output path (defaults to overwriting the input file)'). The description adds a general 'give it the file path and it does everything' but does not enrich the meaning beyond what schema descriptions already state. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Process a .docx file to convert {{CITE:...}} stubs into live Zotero field codes.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like zotero_get_item or zotero_cite, which handle other aspects of Zotero interaction. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 when to use it: when you have a .docx with citation stubs and want them converted. It also provides a workflow hint ('open the file in Word and click Zotero > Refresh'). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks a clear contrast with siblings.

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