vault_trash

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key behavior (soft-delete via moving to .trash/), the side effect of reporting broken incoming links as warnings, and the output format (markdown links with obsidian://). It also provides crucial handling instructions for output paths, which goes beyond basic expectation.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it does, the alternative, and output formatting instructions. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no fluff or redundant information.

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?

The description is quite complete for a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema. It covers the operation, the alternative, the output format, and path handling. A minor gap is the lack of explicit return value details (e.g., success message or structure of warnings), but the 'Reports files with broken incoming links as warnings' partially addresses output. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct use.

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?

The input schema already covers the path parameter with a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by clarifying that paths in output are formatted as markdown links, and instructs to pass only the bracket text (e.g., '01-Projects/Foo/note.md') to other tools' path arguments. This is essential for correct cross-tool usage and thus elevates the score.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Soft-delete a file by moving it to .trash/ (Obsidian convention).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool vault_move by explicitly recommending it for relocation. The mention of broken incoming link warnings adds further specificity.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use an alternative: 'Use vault_move to relocate files instead.' It also clarifies the output format and how to handle paths when interacting with other tools, providing context for when to use this tool for soft-deletion and how to avoid misusing the returned path format.

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