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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-readOnly, so the description adds valuable context by specifying that the item is only moved to trash rather than permanently erased. It also discloses an owner-private scope that is not present in the annotations or schema.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

Given the output schema, return values need no explanation. The description identifies the action, the resource type, the owner-private scope, and the trash side effect, which is sufficient for a relatively simple deletion tool. It leaves alternative routing to the usage dimension rather than making the tool uncallable.

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 description adds no direct parameter details beyond identifying the target as a Collect+ item. The required item_id has no schema description, while the workspace parameters are already documented in the schema; there is no extra format, uniqueness, or workspace-resolution guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('move to trash'), a specific resource ('Collect+ item'), and a scope qualifier ('owner-private'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like read_collectplus_item, move_collectplus_item, and bulk_trash_files, and it clarifies that 'delete' means a soft-delete trash operation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bulk_trash_files or empty_trash. The 'owner-private' qualifier implies a restriction, but the description never states conditions, prerequisites, or alternative routes for other item types or bulk operations.

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