Quarantine (Soft-Delete) a Whatbox Path

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

Despite destructiveHint=true in annotations, the description adds crucial behavioral nuance: 'Requires explicit human approval,' 'Reversible,' and 'reports storage headroom (quarantine does not free space).' These clarify the operational consequences beyond the raw annotation, giving the agent a fuller picture of what to expect.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first clause immediately states the core action, with subsequent clauses covering approval, reversibility, and storage impact. Each sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description covers the main action, approval requirement, reversibility, and storage behavior, which is strong for a simple tool. Given the absence of an output schema, it mentions 'reports storage headroom' as a hint but doesn't detail the return format or explain rootIndex. More on the expected response would make it fully complete.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It only mentions 'a path' generically, leaving relativePath (required) and especially rootIndex (optional, with default) unexplained. This is insufficient for 2 parameters with no schema descriptions.

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: 'Move a path into a dated quarantine directory instead of deleting it.' This uses a specific verb (move), resource (path), and destination (quarantine directory), and distinguishes the tool from siblings like whatbox_purge_quarantine by positioning it as a soft-delete alternative.

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 phrase 'instead of deleting it' implies the appropriate context (when you want a reversible removal) and the caveat 'quarantine does not free space' warns against using it to free storage. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., whatbox_purge_quarantine) or state exclusion conditions, so some guidance is left implicit.

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