List Deleted Items

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

Discloses that items are soft-deleted, recoverable trash, and lists returned fields. Explains defaults and filtering. Does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a read-only list operation, the description provides sufficient behavioral context beyond the absent 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?

Every sentence serves a purpose: main action, return data, defaults, usage, further guidance (render field). No fluff, well-structured with front-loaded purpose and progressive detail.

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?

Fully covers all 4 parameters, explains return fields, ties to sibling tools (restore_item, purge_item), and mentions render field for rendering guidance. Adequate for a tool with no output schema and no annotations.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining defaults (days=7, include_demo=false), the effect of entity_type, and usage patterns (pass days to widen window). This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 lists recently soft-deleted items for the current company, specifying the purpose (user picks one to restore or permanently delete). It distinguishes from other list tools by targeting trash items and mentions what is returned (type, label, deletion time, auto-purge date).

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?

Explicitly describes when to use (list trash for recovery/permanent deletion) and default behavior (7 days, demo hidden). Provides guidance on how to adjust (days, entity_type, include_demo) and presents proper usage of results (present by label, not id, check render field). Context from siblings shows this is the only list-deleted tool, with restore/purge as next steps.

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