Attachment full-text

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the runtime access path: 'get'/'since' read through the running Zotero desktop app when present (no cloud key needed), otherwise the cloud Web API, while 'set' always writes via the cloud Web API. Also discloses the found:false fallback for attachments with no full text and the attachment-only domain constraint. This is consistent with readOnlyHint:false and destructiveHint:true since 'set' overwrites stored text — no contradiction.

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 first sentence front-loads the most decision-relevant fact (this is not a search), and the description is dense with no filler. It loses a point for repeating the attachment-only constraint twice ('only attachment items have full text' / 'Only attachment items support full text') and for sentence length that mildly taxes scanning.

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 three-action tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers a lot: per-action semantics, return shapes for 'get' and 'since', the attachment-only rule, and the desktop-vs-cloud access behavior. Gaps remain — what 'set' returns, and how library_id/library_type scope the 'since' map — so it is not fully complete for the most complex action.

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 only 30%, and the description partially compensates by explaining the action enum, mapping 'since' to a library version, and grouping content + 'indexing counts' for 'set'. However, library_id, library_type, and the individual count fields (total_chars, total_pages, indexed_chars, indexed_pages) are never individually clarified, leaving most parameters under-documented.

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?

Opens with an explicit exclusion that separates it from the search sibling ('Not a search — to find which items contain a term, use zotero_search_items'), then states a concrete verb+resource: 'reads, sets, or tracks one attachment's already-extracted full text by key.' Each action (get/set/since) is named with its distinct purpose, so the tool cannot be confused with any sibling.

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?

Explicitly names an alternative and the exact condition for choosing it: use zotero_search_items with qmode=everything to find which items contain a term rather than this tool. Also gives scope guidance ('Only attachment items support full text') and when 'since' is useful ('useful for incremental indexing'). However, it never differentiates this tool from the sibling zotero_get_fulltext, leaving one real ambiguity.

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