Move an allowed file or folder to Finder Trash without emptying it. Symbolic links are refused to prevent deleting their targets, and deletions may sync through iCloud.
Move an allowed file or folder to Finder Trash. Symbolic links are refused to avoid deleting their targets. May sync deletions through iCloud. Never empties Trash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses genuinely useful behaviors: symbolic links are refused (and why), deletions may propagate through iCloud, and it stops short of emptying Trash. These are safety-relevant facts not derivable from structured fields.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by constraints and side effects. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.
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 destructive mutation with annotations already declaring reversibility-relevant hints, the description covers behavior and side effects well. The one soft spot is the unexplained "allowed" qualifier, but overall it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.
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% and the schema only documents the path string's bounds. The description adds constraints on the target: it may be a file or folder, must be "allowed," and must not be a symlink, which meaningfully enriches the parameter's semantics.
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?
States a specific verb ("Move") and resource ("file or folder") with the destination ("Finder Trash"), which cleanly separates it from sibling tools like apple_files_copy, apple_files_write_text, and apple_files_read_text.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb and clarified by the boundary "Never empties Trash," but there is no explicit when-to-use condition or named alternative sibling. Since no other sibling performs deletion, routing risk is low, but the guidance is not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.