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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the operation is soft/reversible and the recovery tool plus type argument needed to undo it, which an agent cannot infer from the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence carrying the action, the recoverability caveat, and the recovery tool. "como la app" is the only near-filler phrase but it conveys behavioral parity, so nothing is wasted.

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, 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers what the agent most needs: what happens (trash, not purge) and how to reverse it. It could still note side effects on related entities or permissions, but the essentials are present.

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% and both parameters (clip_id, workspace_id) are fully documented in the schema, including the tip to source clip_id from get_clips. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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 and resource ("Manda un clip a la papelera") and pins the target type to clip, which cleanly separates it from the many other delete_* siblings (delete_document, delete_event, delete_task). The added note that the action mirrors the app makes the effect unambiguous.

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 tells the agent this is a trash operation, not a hard delete, and names the exact recovery path (restore_from_trash with type clip). That is meaningful routing context, though it stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g., permanent removal or when the clip should instead be updated).

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