Remove items from a collection

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description concretely substantiates both: it reveals that items persist in the library and other collections, and that non-members are 'reported as unchanged'. This adds specific operational meaning beyond the hints, though it stops short of covering edge cases such as invalid collection keys or partial failures.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the two clarifying constraints — non-deletion and unchanged reporting for non-members — each earn their place and directly prevent misuse.

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 low-complexity mutation with full input-schema documentation, three annotations, and an output schema, the description covers every essential semantic fact: single-collection scope, non-destructive behavior, and idempotent outcome for absent items. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%: each parameter (groupId, itemKeys, collectionKey) is already documented, including the guidance to omit groupId for the personal library and the reference to zotero_list_libraries. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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-resource pair ('Remove items from one collection') and immediately disambiguates the operation from deletion by stating that items 'stay in the library and in any other collection' and 'nothing is deleted'. This explicitly distinguishes it from siblings like zotero_delete_items and zotero_restore_items without ambiguity.

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 use case is implied rather than stated: it describes what the tool does (remove from a single collection, preserve elsewhere) but never explicitly names alternatives or gives when-to-use vs when-not-to-use conditions. The 'one collection' scope qualifier provides context, but the description does not route the agent away from deletion or add-to-collection siblings.

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