zotero_create_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool creates child vs standalone notes, requires HTML content, and returns the new note's key. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the raw schema fields, though it could mention error behavior or prerequisites for parent_item_key.

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 extremely concise: four short sentences, each with a distinct purpose. It front-loads the core action, then states the parent relationship, the content format, and the return value. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 simple creation tool with rich schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential information: what is created, how to make it a child or standalone note, the required HTML format, and the return value. It could be more complete by naming alternatives or edge-case behavior, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving an HTML example and clarifying the parent_item_key behavior: with it, the note becomes a child note; without it, it is standalone. This enriches the parameter semantics.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a note.' It adds the key semantic that parent_item_key makes it a child note while omitting it creates a standalone note. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like zotero_create_annotation, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives conditional usage guidance: include parent_item_key for a child note, omit it for a standalone note. It also explains that content must be HTML. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as zotero_create_annotation or zotero_create_item, so the usage context is implied rather than fully explicit.

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