trash_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior: 'soft delete' (reversible) and mentions the undo path via restore_item. It does not detail side effects like item visibility or permissions, but the core behavioral trait is covered.

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?

Two succinct sentences that front-load the action and include a useful cross-reference. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool, the description provides the essential behavior (soft delete) and the undo path. It could add what happens to the item after trashing, but this is not needed for correct invocation.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('Item ID', 'Vault share ID'). The description itself adds no extra parameter information, which is fine given the schema is sufficient.

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 an item to trash') and the resource ('item'), and specifies 'soft delete' to distinguish it from permanent deletion. This differentiates it from sibling tools like update_item or view_item.

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?

It explicitly points to restore_item for undoing the action, which clarifies the primary alternative scenario. However, it does not discuss when to use trash_item versus other modification tools, though the operation is fairly self-evident.

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