trash_snippetMove a live snippet to the trash so its link stops working; the owner can restore it until the trash is emptied. Never deletes permanently; confirm with the user first.
Move your live snippet to the trash (write scope required). Its link stops working; the owner can restore it from the app until the trash is emptied. This tool never deletes permanently. Confirm with the user first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context on top: the snippet link stops working, the owner can restore it from the app until the trash is emptied, and the operation is never permanent. It also surfaces the authorization requirement (write scope) and a confirmation step, which annotations cannot express.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then reversibility, then the safety instruction. No sentence repeats the name or the annotations, and nothing is padding.
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 mutation with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers side effects, reversibility, scope requirements, and confirmation guidance. The only omission is what the call returns or whether the response includes the trashed state, which is minor at this complexity.
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 0% and the single parameter 'id' is never described in the text, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and pattern constraints. The gap is small because a lone 'id' on a snippet-trashing tool is self-evident, but it is still undocumented.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Move your live snippet to the trash') and immediately constrains scope by stating it never deletes permanently, which separates soft-delete semantics from any hard-delete expectation among the snippet/collection siblings.
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?
It gives concrete preconditions for use: write scope is required and the agent should confirm with the user first. What it lacks is an explicit pointer to an alternative when permanent removal or bulk cleanup is actually wanted, leaving that branch to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.