move_item_to_different_library

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing that the item is recreated under a new key, the original is deleted, and Word citations break silently and permanently. It also explains version staleness refusal and the return of old_key/new_key, which are not apparent from annotations or 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 front-loaded with 'DESTRUCTIVE' and organized into clear sections: core behavior, warning about citations, alternative tools, parameter semantics, and return value. Every sentence contributes critical information without fluff.

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 complex, destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, preconditions, parameter meanings, expected return values, and alternatives. It is self-sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it and what to expect.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining target_library_id/target_library_type as the destination library and version as the current source-library version that must be fresh. However, it does not explicitly describe the 'key' parameter, and the distinction between library_id and library_type is not detailed (e.g., possible values for target_library_type).

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 clearly states the tool moves an item to a different Zotero library, explicitly contrasting with same-library reorganization. It names the verb 'move' and the resource 'item to a different library,' and distinguishes from sibling tools like add_to_collection/remove_from_collection.

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 provides explicit when-to-use (cross-library move) and when-not-to-use (reorganizing within the current library, with named alternatives). It also specifies the prerequisite of write access to the target library and the requirement for a current version.

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