delete_item_permanently

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the deletion is irreversible, silently breaks Word plugin field references, and enforces a version match to prevent silently discarding concurrent edits. This is valuable context that annotations alone do not provide, with no contradiction.

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 concise yet information-dense. It opens with a clear DESTRUCTIVE warning, explains the most serious consequence, then details the version guard. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation's irreversibility, its impact on dependent documents, the version check mechanism, and explicit guidance on appropriate use. This is complete for the tool's complexity and risk profile.

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 input schema has no descriptions for the two parameters, but the description explains that 'version' is the item's current version (from search_items/get_item) and that it is used to reject stale deletes. The 'key' parameter is self-explanatory (item key). This meaningfully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 the exact action: 'permanently deletes the item from its library. Cannot be undone through this server.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like trash_item and restore_from_trash, which handle reversible deletion.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Only call this when that's a known, accepted consequence, not as a routine cleanup step') and highlights the side effect on Zotero Word plugin citations. This provides clear context and exclusion criteria, effectively differentiating it from trash_item as the normal cleanup path.

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