trash_itemMove a Zotero item to the trash by item key, with optional user or group library targeting, so it can be restored later.
Move an item to Zotero's trash so it can be restored later.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_key | Yes | ||
| library_id | No | ||
| library_type | No |
| 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 readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'can be restored later' essentially restates that non-destructive guarantee in prose rather than adding new information. It says nothing about permissions, where trashed items surface, or what happens to the item's collection memberships.
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; the recoverability constraint is stated immediately after the action.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the core action plus recoverability is conveyed. However, for a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotation-independent guidance on library scoping or sibling routing, the description is only minimally complete.
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% across 3 parameters, and the description mentions no parameters at all. It implies a single item is targeted, but the optional library_id/library_type scoping — which matters for Zotero user vs group libraries — is left entirely undocumented.
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 ('Move an item to Zotero's trash'), which is clearly distinguishable from delete_item by the recoverability framing. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (delete_item) or its lifecycle partners (restore_item, list_trash), so it falls short of a 5.
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?
'So it can be restored later' implies the use case (soft removal vs permanent deletion) but never states when to prefer this over delete_item or how it relates to restore_item/list_trash. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.