trash_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the primary behavior (moving a note to trash) and adds that it is 'restaurable' (restorable), which implies non-permanence and that a restore_note tool exists. It does not detail side effects (e.g., what happens to links or attachments) but for a simple trash action, the description is reasonably transparent. No contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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 a single, concise sentence in French: 'Met une note a la corbeille (restaurable).' It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no unnecessary words, and directly conveys the action. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 (trash a note), the description is largely complete. It states the action and reversibility, and the sibling tools (restore_note, delete_note) provide context. It does not mention preconditions (e.g., note must not already be trashed) or output details, but these are not critical for a basic trash action. Overall, adequate for the 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?

The single parameter 'path' has no description in the schema (schema coverage is 0%). The tool description does not clarify what 'path' refers to (e.g., note ID, file path, folder path). Since the description provides no additional meaning, the parameter is ambiguous and relies on implicit knowledge from other tools. This is a significant gap.

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: 'Met une note a la corbeille' (puts a note in the trash). It identifies the resource (note) and the destination (trash), and adds '(restaurable)' to indicate the operation is reversible. This distinguishes it from permanent deletion (delete_note) and aligns with the restore_note sibling.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like delete_note or archive_note. It only hints at reversibility with '(restaurable)', but does not explicitly compare to other operations or state scenarios where trashing is preferred. The user must infer usage from the sibling tool names.

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