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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantially more: the delete is a soft delete that is user-restorable, expectedVersion is required to force VERSION_CONFLICT on concurrent edits, and re-deleting an already-deleted item succeeds with alreadyDeleted=true so retries are safe. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer from the structured fields.

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?

Single dense sentence, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by usage constraint and version/retry semantics in priority order. Each clause carries information, though the concurrency and retry details packed into one sentence make it slightly heavy for a quick scan.

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?

Covers operation semantics, safety constraint, concurrency requirement, and retry behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need not be restated. Nothing an agent needs to call this destructive tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description explains the *purpose* of expectedVersion (optimistic concurrency, failing with VERSION_CONFLICT rather than clobbering newer content) and the retry semantics of the already-deleted case, adding rationale beyond the schema's terse field descriptions.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Move a saved Sensefold item to the recycle bin') and immediately qualifies the operation as a soft delete, which cleanly separates it from siblings like save_link, update_note, or fetch. An agent can identify the operation without inspecting the 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?

Gives a clear gating rule ('Only delete what the user explicitly asked to delete'), which is strong when-to-use guidance for a destructive tool. It does not, however, name alternative siblings (e.g. update_tags or fetch) or describe when a different tool is the better choice, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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