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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it discloses that deletion is a recoverable soft delete with a 30-day window, that linked movements are never deleted and come back labeled 'protegidos', and exactly what each mode returns (preview counts vs. actual moved count plus lote id).

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and recoverability before the selection modes, then the confirmation workflow. Every clause carries operational information; only the final return-value sentence comfortably overlaps the earlier confirm explanation, costing a little tightness.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: selection combinatorics, the mandatory user-confirmation loop, the protection rule, and the shape of both return variants including the lote id for restoration.

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 60% (desde/hasta/importado_el already documented), and the description adds real value on the two undocumented params: how ids works as a selection mode and the full dry-run/commit contract for confirm. The 5000-item cap on ids is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource+outcome: 'Move imported bank movements to the trash'. It distinguishes itself from sibling deletion tools (delete_invoice, delete_expense) and from restore_bank_trash by naming the soft-delete/restore pairing.

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?

Explicitly enumerates the three combinable selection modes (ids, desde/hasta, importado_el), then prescribes the two-step workflow: call WITHOUT confirm first, report the count to the user, and only re-call with confirm=true after agreement. It also names the recovery path (restore_bank_trash) and the exclusion rule for invoice/expense/payment-linked movements.

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