trash_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (moving to Trash), support for dry_run, and return type, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or behavior for paths already in Trash.

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 short and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by bullet-point argument descriptions, and a one-line return specification. No wasted words.

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 tool's low complexity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers purpose, parameters, and return format adequately. It could mention error handling or path validation, but is mostly 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context: 'path: Existing file or directory path' and 'dry_run: Return the planned action without moving to Trash', which significantly clarifies the parameters beyond their types and defaults.

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 moves a file or directory to the macOS Trash and explicitly says permanent delete is not supported, which distinguishes it from other file operations like move_file or delete.

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 when to use it (to move to Trash) and notes a limitation (no permanent delete), but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to choose this over alternatives.

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