update_annotationModify an annotation's comment or highlight color in Zotero by key to correct notes or recolor highlights.
Update the comment and/or highlight color of an annotation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color | No | ||
| comment | No | ||
| 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 readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that only comment and color are modifiable (implying the annotation text/anchor is immutable), but says nothing about failure when the key is missing or whether an empty/null value clears a field.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the intent is immediately clear. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters, but there is no wasted wording.
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?
With 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and only 1 required parameter, the description documents just 2 of the 5 inputs. An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the caller still lacks enough information to know how to uniquely target an annotation (annotation_key plus which library fields).
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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It names only comment and color, leaving the required annotation_key unexplained and giving no insight into library_id/library_type, which appear to scope the lookup.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Update ... an annotation') plus the exact mutable fields (comment and highlight color), which distinguishes it from create_annotation, delete_annotation, and get_annotations. It never names those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or permissions, and no reference to alternative tools such as create_annotation (to add) or delete_annotation (to remove). The agent must infer the use case entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.