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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substance they do not carry: this is a reversible trash operation, it disappears from list_designs and the web app, and it is rejected mid-run. It also contrasts the irreversible permanent variant, which is exactly the risk context an agent needs before deleting.

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 destructive-versus-reversible distinction is front-loaded and each sentence adds information. The closing CLI mapping is tangential to an MCP invocation, but it is a single short line and does not obscure the core behavior.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, nothing material is missing: effect, reversibility, blocker, and recovery alternative are all covered. An agent can invoke it safely on the strength of the description alone.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, so the schema already does most of the work. The only added meaning is that the target may be a board workspace as well as a design, which slightly widens the interpretation of design_id beyond the schema's 'returned by create_design or list_designs'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first clause gives a specific verb and resource ('Move a design (or a board workspace) to the trash') and immediately scopes the effect ('it leaves list_designs and the web app'). It is clearly separable from restore_design and from a permanent removal, so an agent can choose it without opening a schema.

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 states when to use it (default soft delete), how to get the other behavior (permanent), the recovery path (restore_design), and the one blocking condition ('Refused while a run on it is in progress'). That is explicit when/when-not guidance plus named alternatives.

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