trash_conversation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining whether the action is reversible, what permissions are needed, or how it affects related data. The sibling 'restore_conversation_from_trash' implies reversibility, but this is not stated here.

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 short sentence that is easy to parse and not verbose. It is appropriately concise for stating the core action, though it leaves out important details which are penalized in other dimensions.

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 the lack of annotations, incomplete parameter information, and the existence of sibling tools with overlapping functions, this description is too sparse. It does not explain the consequences of trashing a conversation, reversibility, or any side effects, making it incomplete for a tool with a 2-parameter schema.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (conversation_id and api_token) with zero description coverage. The description does not mention either parameter, so it adds no semantic meaning beyond the raw schema. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description was expected to compensate, but it fails to do so.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and identifies both the resource ('a conversation') and the target state ('to trash'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'archive_conversation' and 'spam_conversation' by naming the exact destination.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'archive_conversation' or 'spam_conversation'. It does not mention any use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-support information.

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