Enviar para a Lixeira

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the crucial nuance that the action is not permanent and is reversible through the Windows Recycle Bin. It also discloses user-facing naming guidelines. There is no contradiction between the description and the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the critical destructive warning and uses a numbered checklist that is easy to follow. It is somewhat longer than necessary and repeats 'Lixeira' several times, but every sentence carries safety-relevant information for a destructive action.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the effect, the reversibility, the required confirmation flow, and the exact user-facing language. Nothing essential to safe invocation is missing.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'caminho', which already documents that it is the path of the file or folder to send to the Recycle Bin. The tool description adds no additional format, path-type, or validation details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it sends a file or folder to the Windows Recycle Bin. It clearly distinguishes itself from permanent deletion by explicitly stating that it never deletes permanently and that the user can restore the item.

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 provides a clear and mandatory pre-call protocol: list the exact items, inform the user that they can be recovered, ask 'Deseja continuar?' and wait for explicit confirmation. It also states when not to invoke the tool — never by inference alone. It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the conditional usage is unambiguous.

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