move_to_trash

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds the crucial nuance that deletion is recoverable via the OS trash, mandates user consent before execution, and discloses that non-scan and protected paths are silently skipped. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from the boolean hints.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action and its non-destructive nature, followed by the consent precondition and the skip rule. No redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

With an output schema present, rich annotations, and fully documented parameters, the description covers everything else an agent needs: recoverability, consent requirement, and skip semantics. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a filtering rule not in the schema: paths outside the scan result and protected paths are skipped rather than rejected. That changes how an agent should interpret partial success from the paths array.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (move to OS Trash/Recycle Bin) and immediately disambiguates it from permanent deletion ('完全削除はしない'), which is the key distinction an agent must make among cleanup-related siblings. The reference to scan results ties it to scan_cleanup_targets.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('必ずユーザーの明示的な同意を得てから実行すること') and implies the tool is used on paths produced by a prior scan. It does not name an alternative tool or describe a case where a different sibling should be chosen instead, so it falls short of a full when/when-not specification.

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