goodnotes_trash_document

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds real context beyond that: the backup-before-trashing sequence, title binding to guard against renaming races, and post-move ID verification in Trash.

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 tight sentences with the action and safety precondition front-loaded; no filler, and every clause conveys a distinct operational fact.

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, no-output-schema tool with three fully undocumented parameters, the description covers the safety narrative and verification but omits idempotency semantics for operationId and the multi-segment nature of itemPath. An agent could still call it, but with avoidable ambiguity around two of three required parameters.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains expectedTitle ('binds its current title') and implies itemPath identifies the document, but leaves operationId completely unexplained and never clarifies why itemPath is an array of up to 13 UUIDs for a 'one document' operation.

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 one ... document to Trash') plus two behavioral qualifiers: only explicitly writable documents, and it saves a PDF backup first. This clearly separates it from restore/list-trash siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition that governs when and how to call it: a PDF backup must be saved first, and the target must be an explicitly writable document. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or pointing at goodnotes_restore_document for undo.

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