trash_items

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds essential nuance: the action is reversible and items can be restored from Zotero trash. It also instructs the agent to confirm with the user, which is important behavioral guidance beyond what annotations express. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loads the primary purpose and reversibility, followed by usage context, parameter guidance, and confirmation guidance. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and useful annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use it, the key behavioral nuance of reversibility, parameter expectations, and user-confirmation expectations. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, but the description compensates by explicitly stating that the tool 'accepts one or more item keys,' directly clarifying the sole parameter's semantics. It does not explain how to source item keys or provide format details, but given the parameter's simplicity this is sufficient.

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 states a specific action ('Move Zotero items to trash') with a clear resource and a key qualifier ('reversible'). It also frames the tool's use case ('when the user wants to delete papers') and implicitly distinguishes it from permanent deletion via empty_trash.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: when the user wants to delete papers. It also adds a practical guardrail: confirm with the user before trashing. However, it does not name alternatives or say when not to use it, such as when permanent deletion is needed.

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