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

Annotations declare non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the entry disappears from lists and search, can be restored via restore_note for 30 days, and cannot be permanently deleted here. This is consistent with destructiveHint=false because it explicitly says nothing is deleted for good.

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?

Front-loads the action and effect, then adds reversibility and a clear usage constraint in compact prose. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 one-parameter reversible mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context—effect on lists/search, 30-day retention, restoration tool, and invocation guardrail—so an agent can call it correctly.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the single 'note' parameter as an id or exact title. The description repeats that identification guidance but adds no new syntax, formatting rules, or edge-case handling.

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 ('Move') and resource ('entry to the Trash') and explains the observable effect—disappearing from lists/search and being restorable for 30 days—so it is clearly distinguishable from restore_note and other note operations.

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 restricts invocation to cases where the user asked for it and points to restore_note for reversing the action. It does not name a non-trash alternative for related but different requests, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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