Zotero Delete Item

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 clearly states the action is a move-to-Trash (not permanent deletion), that trashed items are recoverable, that permanent deletion requires emptying the Trash in the UI, and that the tool refuses notes by default. This is strong behavioral context, though it doesn't mention what the response looks like or whether the operation requires write authorization.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the scope, the sibling alternative, the recovery behavior, and the safety override. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is zero filler.

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 is complete for a delete/trash tool: it covers scope, safety, recovery, and the alternative path. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. A minor gap is that it doesn't mention whether write authorization is required, but the sibling zotero_authorize_local_writes and zotero_write_capabilities tools suggest that context is handled elsewhere.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the safety rationale behind allow_note's default and explicitly routing note deletion to zotero_manage_note. It doesn't add syntax details for item_key, but the schema covers that adequately.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Move a Zotero item to the Trash.' It explicitly states the tool works for any item type and names the sibling alternative (zotero_manage_note) for notes, making the tool's scope unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use this for any item type, but for notes use zotero_manage_note(action='delete') instead, with the safety rationale. It also explains the allow_note override condition, so an agent knows exactly when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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