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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the operation is reversible via restore_from_trash and mirrors in-app behavior, which clarifies that 'destructive' here means trashed, not permanently erased.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the operation and its scope. 'como la app' carries little load but does convey behavior parity, so it is not wasted enough to drop below a 4.

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 simple two-parameter soft delete, the description plus annotations plus a fully documented schema cover what an agent needs: what it does, that it is reversible, and where to undo it. No output schema is needed since the return is trivial.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both canvas_id and workspace_id documented in the schema itself, including the workspace name-or-UUID flexibility. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Manda un canvas a la papelera'), so an agent can tell it apart from the many sibling delete_* tools by the canvas resource alone. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it falls just under a 5.

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 mention of 'se recupera con restore_from_trash' points at the recovery path and implies this is a soft delete, which is genuinely useful routing context. However, it never says when to choose this over delete_document/delete_clip or when not to use it, so usage is only implied.

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