Delete a node (move to trash)

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint and readOnlyHint. The description adds value by clarifying that deletion is recoverable (trash), not permanent. This is important behavioral context that annotations don't capture, but it doesn't mention other traits like permissions or side effects on child items.

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 and key behavioral info. Every word is necessary, no 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 1-parameter tool with annotations, the description covers the main points: action, recoverability, and usage guidance. It lacks details about what happens to folder contents or return value, but these are minor omissions given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the parameter description in the schema is already clear (path or node id). The description adds no additional parameter-level information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it deletes Rootr documents/folders by moving to trash, and the name/title reinforce this. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the resource type (node) is distinct from row, webhook, sheet deletions, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 advises using rootr_read/rootr_list first to confirm the target, which is good practice for a deletion tool. However, it doesn't specify when not to use it (e.g., for permanent deletion) and doesn't mention any prerequisites like permissions.

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