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

Annotations declare destructive/idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them: 30-day retention window, folders disappear from listings, file reads return DELETED, files retain their filing and return with the folder, and the slug stays reserved. The idempotency claim is even given an observable ('returns the same dates').

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?

Front-loaded with the action, which is good, but the middle is compressed into colon-chained clauses ('its slug: in workspaceId when given, else in team, else one of your personal folders') that must be re-read. It also duplicates schema text rather than spending those words on new information.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description's remaining job is effects and permissions — both covered (what leaves listings, what reads return, how recovery works, who may call it). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 all five parameters are already documented; the description largely restates the folder resolution rule that appears verbatim in the schema. It adds only a marginal hint about expectedWorkspaceRevision being optional, and the phrasing 'with why (expectedWorkspaceRevision optional)' is garbled enough to add little.

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 specific verb and resource with scope: 'Move a folder, and the files in it, to the trash for 30 days.' This is clearly distinguishable from folder_update (editing) and trash_purge (permanent removal) among the siblings.

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 concrete gating conditions: permissions vary by folder kind (personal: owner; team: any member; workspace: delete-content right plus why), and notes repetition is safe. It stops short of explicitly naming the recovery path (trash_restore) or stating when not to use it versus trash_purge, so it is clear context but not full alternative routing.

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