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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the crucial nuance that this is reversible via restore_from_trash, which materially changes how an agent should reason about the destructive hint. It still does not cover authorization requirements or whether attached files/relations are affected.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and the recovery path, with zero redundant or decorative text.

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 two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, a safety-related annotation set, and no output schema, the description supplies what annotations cannot: the soft-delete semantics and recovery route. Minor gaps remain around side effects on related entities, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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%, so both document_id and workspace_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax, format, or edge-case guidance, 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 documento a la papelera') and immediately qualifies the operation as a soft delete, which distinguishes it from permanent deletion siblings like delete_document_file. Naming restore_from_trash and get_trash lets an agent place it correctly without opening any schema.

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 clear context: this is the trash action, and recovery is done via restore_from_trash while get_trash enumerates trash contents. It effectively routes the agent to the right follow-up tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. permanent deletion or vs. delete_document_file).

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