trash_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the basic operation. It fails to mention that confirm must be true, that agentReason is validated after mutation, or what happens to the item when trashed. The operation's side effects and response behavior are left unspecified.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified for a tool with a write guard and multiple selector parameters. It is brief, yet brevity comes at the cost of omitting essential usage context.

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?

Given six parameters, a required confirm flag, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain how to construct a valid request, whether selectors are alternatives or additive, or what the tool returns. The agent must infer critical details from parameter names and schema hints.

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 100%, so each parameter already has meaningful documentation. The description adds the concept of 'selectors', implying itemId, shareId, itemTitle, and vaultName are alternative ways to identify the item, but it does not clarify how they should be combined or which are sufficient.

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 states a specific action ('Move an item to trash') and resource ('item'), which clearly distinguishes it from reverse operations like untrash_item and from permanent deletion like delete_item. The phrase 'by selectors' hints at flexible identification but remains somewhat vague about what selectors are.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_item, untrash_item, or move_item. It does not mention prerequisites like confirm being true or when selector-based identification should be preferred over itemId-based identification.

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