Move a file or directory to the system trash instead of deleting it permanently, keeping it recoverable through gio trash.
Move a file to trash (recoverable, NOT permanent delete). Uses gio trash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | File or directory path to trash |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is not read-only and is destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the operation is recoverable rather than permanent, and it specifies the underlying mechanism ('Uses gio trash'). It does not describe error behavior or whether directories are handled.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its most important safety distinction. Every phrase adds 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 simple one-parameter mutation, the description covers the key behavior, recoverability, and mechanism. It is slightly incomplete because it says 'file' while the schema allows directories, and it does not mention what happens if the path does not exist.
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 the single parameter already documents that it accepts a file or directory path. The description does not add additional path syntax, constraints, or handling details beyond the schema.
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: 'Move a file to trash'. It also explicitly distinguishes this operation from permanent deletion, which is the most important semantic distinction for an agent to understand.
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 phrase 'recoverable, NOT permanent delete' gives clear usage context and implicitly excludes permanent deletion. It does not name an alternative tool, but there is no obvious sibling trash/delete tool in the provided list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.