Zugzwang exact meaning

Recently on Reddit, I used the term Zugzwang while describing a bad position. Every available move made the position worse somehow, but the king was in check. A higher rated player pointed out that Zugzwang literally means "compulsion to move", and since the king was in check, not even passing the turn would make it better. So even though the position would be made worse by any move, it isn't Zugzwang. What do you think on the topic?

My exact words: "It's Zugzwang. h6 loses the queen after Nxf7+, and also looks like a queen mate too. If you go to g6, Queen checks and you either lose the queen or get mated soon. h8 is mate in 2, so is g8."

Zugzwang is a very special situation where you would be fine, except you have to move, and any move is bad.

If white had the ability to pass instead of moving, the position would be a draw. It is impossible to mate with a rook if the side with the solo king can pass.

However, in actual chess white has to move, and thus gets mated immediately.

None of this is present in the position that you've shown.

It's only zugzwang if passing would change the eval from lost to draw, lost to winning, or draw to winning.

In this case passing would not help, so it's not zugzwang... you misunderstand the concept.

The Oxford Companion to Chess by David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld (1987) defines Zugzwang in part as follows:
[A] German word now anglicized for a position in which each player would obtain a worse result if it were his turn to move than if it were not. (Some authorities call this a reciprocal zugzwang.) All chess positions may be classified in one of three groups according to their time characteristics. There are those, the great majority, in which both players would like to have the move; SQUEEZES, when neither player wants to have the move but one player can LOSE THE MOVE thereby gaining advantage; and zugzwangs when neither player wants to have the move but neither can lose the move.

This position is a zugzwang. White to play draws because he must lose his pawn or give stalemate; Black to play loses because the pawn can then be promoted. This example shows the characteristics of all zugzwangs: the result each player obtains if it were his turn to play is worse than if it were not, neither player can lose the move, and neither can make threats. . . .
Zugzwangs occur only in the endgame, most frequently in pawn endings, occasionally in endings with knights, and rarely in endgames with line-pieces. The number of possible zugzwangs is finite. For example, there are only four basic kinds in the ending K+P v. K.

....

I agree with the Reddit post.

If every move you can make is losing then your position is already losing.

The essense of Zugzwang (in the original sense, at least) is that you would be fine if it was your opponent's move instead. It is the compulsion to play some move on your own turn that ruins you.

This can't apply to a position where you are in check.