Move Document to Trash

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'without deleting its content' and 'safe to retry.' It adds useful context beyond the annotations by noting that the operation is recoverable with restore_doc.

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 short sentences, front-loads the core action, and every clause adds relevant meaning about safety, recoverability, and retry behavior.

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 low complexity, full schema coverage, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly. It explains the operation's effect and recovery path without needing to repeat schema details.

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 100%, so the input schema already explains docId and workspaceId. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: moving a document to the AFFiNE trash. The phrase 'without deleting its content' distinguishes this from permanent deletion and makes the trash semantics explicit.

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 gives clear usage context by framing this as a recoverable trash operation and naming restore_doc as the recovery path. It does not explicitly contrast with delete_doc or move_doc, but the intended use case is clear.

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