zotero_write_fulltext

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation is a mutation ('Write (or replace)') and describes the effect ('so zotero_item_fulltext and full-text search can read it'). It does not discuss permissions or reversibility beyond 'replace', but the core behavioral context is present.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. The second sentence provides necessary situational context without redundancy.

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, combined with complete parameter schemas and an output schema, gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly and understand why it exists. Minor gaps exist—permissions, side effects on existing fulltext, and reversibility—but the core behavior and trigger are well covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (content, item_key, indexed_pages) already having meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Write (or replace) an attachment's indexed full-text content', naming the specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like zotero_upload_file (file upload) and zotero_item_fulltext (reader/consumer) by targeting the search-index text rather than the source file.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger condition: 'Use for attachments whose text Zotero could not extract (scans, exotic formats)'. It also tells the agent to pass extracted text. It does not mention exclusions or name alternatives, but the stated use case is clear enough for selection.

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