trash_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the key trait that the operation is reversible, which is important for a mutation tool. It does not mention side effects like where the note goes or if it disappears from normal list, but the reversibility statement provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 two tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the essential caveat about reversibility. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core action and reversibility. It falls short on differentiating from closely related siblings like delete_note and archive_note, which is a meaningful gap given the sibling 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining how to identify the note. The description only says 'a note' and never references the note_id parameter, adding no semantic value beyond the schema's own 'Note Id' title. The single parameter is simple and inferable, but the description does not explicitly connect it to the operation.

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 note to trash') and the resource (note), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It references restore_note as the reversal path, which positions trash as a non-permanent state, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool delete_note.

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 usage context by noting reversibility via restore_note, which suggests this is for temporary removal rather than permanent deletion. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer trash_note over archive_note or delete_note, leaving the decision among sibling tools to inference.

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