Trash Item

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the crucial behavioral detail that trashing is reversible ('can be restored later'). This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the non-permanent nature of the operation, which is valuable context for the agent.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and purpose, with no fluff or redundant information. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and an output schema (so return values are covered), the description communicates the essential purpose and reversibility. The only gap is the lack of parameter semantics, but given the simplicity of the tool and the schema's presence, the description is largely complete for safe invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate by explaining the 'item_key' parameter. However, the description does not mention the parameter at all, relying entirely on the schema's title 'Item Key'. This forces the agent to infer what 'item' refers to in the description without guidance on the key format or usage.

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 ('Move an item to Zotero's trash') and specifies the key benefit ('can be restored later'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'delete_item' (permanent deletion). It is a specific verb+resource combination with a clear scope.

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 phrase 'so it can be restored later' provides clear context for when to use this tool (temporary removal with intent to restore). It does not explicitly name alternatives like 'delete_item', but the context and the sibling list make the usage scenario obvious, so no explicit exclusion is needed.

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