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

Beyond the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses genuinely useful behavioral facts: a 30-day recovery window, that only the brain owner can restore, that restoration happens via the Cobrain dashboard, and that no tool can see or restore the trash. This is exactly the kind of context a delete tool needs.

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 a single information-dense sentence with the action front-loaded and consequences following. It is compact and wastes little, though the second clause runs long.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral facts (reversibility window, who restores, trash invisibility). It is missing only usage routing against siblings and path-format guidance, which are secondary.

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 50%: the workspace parameter is well documented in the schema, but path has no description anywhere. The tool description says nothing about parameter meaning or format (e.g., what a valid path looks like), so it fails to compensate for the undocumented path parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource set ('Move a note, attachment or folder to the brain's trash'), clarifying that the delete is actually a soft-delete/move, which distinguishes it from the sibling move_file. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the action is 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as move_file, nor any stated preconditions for deleting. Usage is only implied by the action described, leaving the agent to infer when a trash-move is appropriate.

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