update_item

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds valuable context beyond those hints by disclosing optimistic locking, 'to prevent overwriting concurrent changes,' which tells the agent how concurrent edits are handled. This is meaningful behavioral information not present in the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The main action and target resource are front-loaded, the use case follows, and the locking behavior closes the description. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter schema, the existing output schema, and annotations that already convey destructive/read-only behavior, the description covers the important operational detail (optimistic locking) and typical usage. It is slightly incomplete on item_key semantics, but overall sufficient for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives semantic meaning to the 'fields' parameter by listing title, author, date, DOI, and other bibliographic fields, but it does not explain the 'item_key' parameter or why 'fields' may be a string. Some value added, but the gap remains.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update metadata fields on an existing Zotero item.' It lists concrete field examples (titles, authors, dates, DOIs) and the word 'existing' distinguishes this from creation tools like create_item or create_item_manual.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use this to correct titles, authors, dates, DOIs, or other bibliographic fields.' This tells an agent when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as batch_organize or manage_tags.

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