Move to trash

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description correctly reinforces rather than contradicts. The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the path disappears immediately but the item is recoverable via drive_restore. It stops short of describing response shape or any auth/permission requirements, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, and the core action plus the recoverability/preference guidance are front-loaded. Every sentence 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 single-parameter, non-destructive move tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what it does, what happens to the path, how to undo it, and when to prefer it over deletion. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100% ('Absolute remote path to trash.'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move a file or folder to the Proton Drive trash') and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming drive_restore (the inverse) and drive_delete (the permanent alternative). An agent can pick it apart from drive_delete and drive_empty_trash without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Prefer this over drive_delete unless the user explicitly wants permanent removal.' It names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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