kb_trash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the destination (_Trash/<today>/), that the item is not indexed and not in INDEX.md, and that the action is reversible via kb_move_file. It omits any permission/auth or side-effect details on the index, but the core behavioral profile is solid.

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?

Front-loads the core action and recoverability, then adds destination and restore/cleanup guidance with no filler. The param lines are compact and useful.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers mechanics, destination, and restoration for a 2-param mutation tool. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit auth/permission context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it gives a concrete relpath example ('03_Notes/重复的笔记.md') and clarifies that reason is an optional note for the organize log. Both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 (remove) and resource (file or folder in the knowledge base) with the key qualifier 'recoverably'. The recoverable framing distinguishes it from a permanent delete, though no sibling is a direct delete equivalent.

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?

Explains the recovery path (use kb_move_file to restore, empty _Trash in Finder when certain) which implies this is a soft-delete, giving clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly contrast with other mutation siblings like kb_rename_file or kb_organize, so when-not guidance is only implied.

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