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

Annotations already convey read-only=false, destructive=true, and idempotent=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that descendants are included and that the destination is the NotePom trash, which clarifies the destructive scope.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation, scope, and destination, making it appropriately concise.

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 destructive tool with four parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It omits the meaning of required idempotencyKey and optional expectedUpdatedAt, and it does not guide an agent on when to choose this over closely related sibling tools. Output schema and annotations help, but they do not fill these semantic gaps.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It loosely maps 'note or folder' to entityType and 'exact' to entityId, but it does not explain idempotencyKey or expectedUpdatedAt, both of which are semantically important for correct invocation.

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 identifies the operation as moving a note or folder, including its descendants, to the NotePom trash. It is specific enough to distinguish this from most siblings like move_workspace_item and trash_file, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trash_file, move_workspace_item, purge_trash_entry, or restore_trash_entry. The description implies use when an exact note or folder should be trashed, but it provides no explicit selection criteria or exclusions.

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