zotero_create_saved_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that this is a creation action, that the search persists in the sidebar, that it re-evaluates automatically, and that it returns the new search's key. It does not cover failure modes or duplicate-name behavior, but the core behavioral profile is well communicated.

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 efficiently structured: the first sentence states the core action, the second provides the essential conditions format and allowed values, and the third states the return value. Every sentence carries useful information with no wasted words.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the description covers purpose, condition construction, persistence, and return value, the tool is substantially complete for an agent to call it correctly. It could optionally mention what happens on invalid conditions or duplicate names, but these are minor gaps given the strong schema and description coverage.

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?

Though the schema already covers 100% of parameters, the description adds substantial value by explaining the exact conditions format with a concrete example and listing common condition fields and operators. This goes beyond the schema's terse examples and gives the agent the vocabulary needed to construct valid conditions.

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 ('Create') and resource ('saved (dynamic) search') and explains the search's persistent, auto-re-evaluating nature in the left sidebar. This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like zotero_search_items, zotero_update_saved_search, and zotero_delete_saved_search even without naming them.

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 makes clear that this creates a persistent, auto-updating search rather than a one-off query, implying when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as zotero_search_items for temporary searches or zotero_update_saved_search for modifying an existing saved search, so the guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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