delete_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the deletion behavior (move to trash or permanent delete) but omits critical details: whether deletion requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to associated data, or rate limits. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes essential behavioral detail (trash vs. permanent). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (destructive operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameter intent but misses permission requirements, reversibility, and error handling. The output schema may help with return values, but the description doesn't reference it, leaving gaps in operational context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'permanent' controls trash vs. permanent deletion, which clarifies the boolean parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't describe 'item_key' (e.g., format, source) or provide examples, leaving half the parameters with minimal context beyond the schema.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a Zotero item'), with additional clarification about moving to trash or permanent deletion. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_from_collection' by specifying deletion rather than collection management, though it doesn't explicitly compare to other destructive tools like 'merge_duplicates'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., item existence), exclusions, or compare to similar tools like 'remove_from_collection' for non-destructive removal. The description implies usage for deletion but lacks contextual direction.

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