insert_citation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses placeholder rendering until field update, prerendered cite shaping, auto-backup rotation semantics, atomic validated save, and refusal of documents open in Word. This is substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: core action, parameter effects, usage warning, backup behavior, and failure precondition. It is front-loaded with the central operation and keeps supporting detail compact.

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 description covers prerequisites, rendering behavior, backup, save semantics, and a key failure mode. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. It could be slightly more explicit about what happens when no anchor match exists, but overall it is complete enough for safe 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains tag ('stored source'), occurrence ('occurrence-th anchor_text match'), anchor_text, backup ('backup=False skips rotation only'), and mentions pages/prefix/suffix/suppress flags as shaping the rendered cite. It does not fully define exact formatting of pages or prefix/suffix, but it adds real meaning the schema lacks.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Insert a CITATION field for a stored source' and explains the tag comes from add_source/list_sources. It also distinguishes this from Zotero/Mendeley/EndNote citation handling by warning about mixing citation systems, which separates it from insert_zotero_citation.

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 instructs to 'Run detect_citation_system first on unfamiliar documents' and explains why mixing systems is problematic. It does not explicitly name alternatives like insert_zotero_citation, so the routing is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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