Trash or restore Zotero items

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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it reveals the underlying flag mechanism (`deleted` 1/0), confirms reversibility, and specifies the API path (local vs web). Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive intent (destructiveHint=false), and the description aligns without 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 and well-structured, fitting in three sentences. It front-loads the core action, then explains the flag behavior, usage guidance, and parameter details without any redundant 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 write operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: reversibility, default action, API routing, and alternative tools. It lacks explicit mention of response formats or error handling, but these are less critical for a straightforward toggle operation. The omission of `library_id`/`library_type` is a minor gap, but the overall description is sufficiently complete for likely use cases.

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 50%, with only `action` and `item_keys` having descriptions. The description explains these two parameters (default action, required keys) but completely omits `library_id` and `library_type`. While it mentions 'your personal library' implying group libraries aren't covered, it doesn't clarify these parameters, leaving ambiguity for group use cases.

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's purpose: 'Move items to the trash' or 'restore them'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates from zotero_delete_items by emphasizing reversibility and the `deleted` flag mechanism.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this instead of zotero_delete_items unless you truly need irreversible removal.' It also explains the default action and the optional `action` parameter, covering both use cases and alternatives.

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