zotero_trash_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is recoverable and never permanently deletes, which is a critical safety behavior. It also mentions the restore functionality. It does not cover error handling or response format, but for a simple mutation tool, the key behavioral trait (non-permanence) is clearly disclosed.

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 three short, information-dense sentences. The primary action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value: the action, the safety guarantee, and the usage requirement. No filler or repetition, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 there is no output schema, the description does not explain return values, but that is a minor gap for a mutation tool. It covers the essential context: the operation is recoverable, never permanent, and requires user confirmation. It does not discuss errors or side effects, but for a simple trash operation, the provided context is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 all parameters (keys, library, restore) are already described in the schema. The description adds only the hint that restore=true is used for restoration, which is redundant with the schema's description. It does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the exact action (move to trash or restore) on a specific resource (Zotero items), and explicitly notes it never permanently deletes. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools, none of which handle trash operations, so an agent can identify its unique purpose without confusion.

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 an explicit usage instruction to confirm with the user first, which is a clear guideline. It does not mention alternative tools, but since no sibling tool performs trash/restore, differentiation is not needed. The note 'Never deletes permanently' also guides usage by preventing accidental permanent deletion.

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