Attachment full-text

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

Discloses that 'set' performs a write via the cloud Web API and describes the three modes. Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, which align with the description. No contradictions, but could mention if setting overwrites existing text.

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 well-structured, front-loading the crucial 'not a search' disclaimer, then clearly enumerating the three actions with brief, informative bullet points. No unnecessary sentences.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the core functionality and return types (text content, stats, map of keys). However, it does not specify the response format for 'set' or detail the exact structure of returned data.

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 low (30%), but the description adds meaning by explaining the roles of 'action', 'content', 'item_key', and 'version'. However, it does not explicitly map all parameters (e.g., total_chars, indexed_chars) to their usage, leaving some ambiguity.

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 reads, sets, or tracks full text for an attachment item by key. It immediately distinguishes from search, making the purpose precise and 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?

Explicitly tells when NOT to use (for search, use zotero_search_items) and clarifies that only attachment items support full text. Provides clear context for each action (get, set, since).

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