Trash cards

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the removal is visible to all board viewers, a sub-board takes its contents with it, and the action is reversible until the trash is emptied outside the API. That is exactly the extra information an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, second sentence carrying the collaboration impact, recoverability path, and the limits of that recovery. No wasted text.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers outcome, visibility, cascading effects, and the recovery route. An agent has everything required to call this correctly or route to restore_card/list_trash instead.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, but the description corroborates that sub-boards are acceptable targets and explains the consequence of passing a sub-board ID (its contents move too). That is meaning beyond the schema's type description.

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?

A specific verb plus resource ('Move cards or sub-boards to the trash') with the scope of the action made explicit, including the sub-board cascade case. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like move_card, restore_card, and list_trash.

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 states the effect and points to list_trash for viewing and restore_card for undo, which tells the agent how this fits into a recoverable workflow. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., permanent removal is only possible in the Milanote app), but the context is clear.

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