trash_item

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

Although annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, the description adds crucial context: it is a soft delete, reversible via restore_from_trash, key-preserving so citations keep resolving, and version staleness is refused. This goes well beyond the annotation flags.

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 efficiently structured: a first paragraph providing the core action and key behavior, and a second focused paragraph for the version parameter. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or repetition of annotations.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers the action, reversibility, key preservation, version handling, and relevant alternatives (delete_item_permanently, restore_from_trash). No critical aspect 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameters. It fully explains version: 'current version (from search_items/get_item) -- refused if stale, same as update_item.' The key parameter is also contextualized via 'the item's key is unchanged,' giving it real semantic meaning.

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 opens with 'Move an item to the trash (soft delete)' – a specific verb and resource that clearly states the action. It immediately distinguishes itself from delete_item_permanently and restore_from_trash, making the tool's unique purpose 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 explicitly contrasts trash_item with delete_item_permanently and states 'prefer it whenever a delete might need to be undone.' This is direct when-to-use guidance with a named alternative, leaving no ambiguity about when to select this tool.

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