Mettre à la corbeille

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the action is recoverable and not permanent deletion, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not cover permissions, idempotency, or effects on existing state, but for a simple move operation this is adequate.

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 two sentences long, immediately states the action, and adds the critical recoverability information. No unnecessary words. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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?

Given the simplicity of the operation (move to trash with one parameter), the description is mostly complete. It lacks details on return values or error cases, but no output schema exists. A note about idempotency or what happens if mail already in trash would improve completeness.

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 'id' is described in the schema as 'Identifiant du mail'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('Déplace un mail vers la Corbeille') and the resource ('mail'). It adds specificity by noting the action is recoverable, distinguishing it from permanent deletion. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deplacer_mail' which moves to other folders.

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 implies use cases by emphasizing recoverability, suggesting it should be used when deletion should be reversible. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond implying contrast with definitive deletion.

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