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 explicitly states that the item goes to the trash, can be restored, and is not an immediate permanent deletion, which is critical information for a delete tool. This is strong transparency beyond the structured fields.

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 two sentences long, with the main action front-loaded and a valuable clarifying follow-up about trash vs. permanent deletion. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or vague 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear action), the description covers the essential behavior and reversibility. An output schema exists, so explaining return values is unnecessary. Minor gaps remain, such as prerequisites for item_key, but overall the description is quite complete for its complexity.

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 description provides no information about the item_key parameter beyond what the schema already shows (a string titled 'Item Key'). With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate but does not mention how to obtain the key, its format, or any examples. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but no added semantics are provided.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Move a reference to the Zotero trash') and explicitly distinguishes itself from permanent deletion by stating the item can be restored. This clearly communicates the tool's function and differentiates it from destructive delete operations.

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 provides clear context by stating this is Zotero's normal delete operation and that items can be restored, implying it should be used when a reversible delete is desired. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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