zotero_update_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: partial updates, optimistic concurrency (reads current version first and surfaces conflicts), and the special tag-replacement behavior. It does not mention auth or reversibility, but those are less critical for this operation and are partially covered by the output schema.

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 tightly written: a one-sentence purpose, two sentences of behavioral context, and a minimal Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers all essential operational details: usage, partial update behavior, concurrency, and edge cases like tags. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly without further info.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains both parameters: item_key is defined as the 8-character key, and changes is illustrated with examples and the special tags format. This adds meaning far beyond the bare 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?

The description starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Change fields on an existing reference.' This immediately distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like zotero_create_item, zotero_get_item, and zotero_delete_item. The scope is precise and unambiguous.

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?

It clearly states partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass are modified') and explains concurrency behavior, which helps an agent decide when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with create/delete/get.

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