delete_annotationPermanently delete a Zotero annotation by its key, optionally specifying a user or group library.
Permanently delete a Zotero annotation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| library_id | No | ||
| library_type | No | ||
| annotation_key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Input schema / properties / library_idAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Library Id"
+}Input schema / properties / library_typeAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "enum": [
+ "user",
+ "group"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Library Type"
+}v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds 'Permanently,' which clarifies that the deletion is irreversible rather than a recoverable trash operation. However, it says nothing about required permissions, cascading effects, or confirmation behavior.
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?
One short front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and direct, though arguably too terse for a destructive operation with three parameters.
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 only covers the basic action and permanence. It omits parameter semantics for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, provides no usage guidance, and does not clarify library scoping. Output schema existence means return values need not be explained, but the remaining gaps are substantial.
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% for all three parameters. The description does not mention annotation_key, library_id, or library_type, nor does it explain that annotation_key is required or how library context is determined. It fails to compensate for the undocumented 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'delete a Zotero annotation.' This clearly distinguishes it from create_annotation, update_annotation, and get_annotations by action, though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool or compare itself to alternatives.
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 no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative routing. The word 'Permanently' hints at caution, but there is no instruction about when this should be used instead of update_annotation, trash_item, or other sibling operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.