insert_bibliography

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: auto-backup behavior, backup=False semantics, atomic validated save, and refusal of open documents are all disclosed beyond what the schema shows.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: the primary action, the precondition, the backup/save behavior, and the refusal case. It is front-loaded with the core operation and contains 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?

The core call is complete: only file_path is required, defaults cover the rest, and output schema exists so return values do not need explanation. The main gap is non-default placement/title semantics, but the essential operational and safety context is present.

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%, and the description only explicitly adds semantics for backup (backup=False skips rotation only). title, at_end, after_index, update_on_open, and file_path are left to naming conventions and defaults, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the exact operation ('Insert the BIBLIOGRAPHY field') and the observable effect (Word generates a full styled reference list from the source store). This clearly differentiates it from insert_citation, set_bibliography_style, and similar siblings.

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 gives an explicit precondition with rationale: run detect_citation_system first on unfamiliar documents because mixed citation managers produce an unmaintainable bibliography. It also gives a clear when-not: the tool refuses documents open in Word.

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