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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which are contradictory and unhelpful. The description does not clarify the actual behavior (e.g., if trash is reversible, if it archives instead of deletes, any permission requirements). It only adds bulk support information, which is useful but insufficient for a mutating operation with such ambiguous annotations.

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 very brief and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a clear note on bulk support. No unnecessary words, but the brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions. It's concise, though the second sentence could be more informative.

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 there is no output schema, the description must compensate for explaining returns and side effects, but it doesn't. It doesn't specify whether the trash operation is reversible, what happens to the note, or any permission requirements. The tool is relatively complex (4 parameters, bulk support, mutation), but the description only covers the bulk aspect, leaving major 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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description must explain all parameters, but it only mentions note_ids for bulk execution and not the other three parameters (unsafe, account, note_id). The description fails to clarify the difference between note_id and note_ids, or the purpose of unsafe and account, leaving the agent guessing.

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 clear verb + resource ('Move uma nota pra lixeira') and explicitly mentions bulk support via note_ids, which differentiates it from siblings like keep_archive_note or keep_delete_note. However, it does not explicitly contrast with these alternatives, so it's clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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?

The description indicates when to use it (to trash a note and for bulk operations) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The mention of bulk support implies a use case, but there is no explicit exclusion or comparison to related tools like keep_archive_note or keep_delete_note.

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