finder_trash_file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint/idempotentHint, but the description adds genuinely useful nuance: trashing is reversible (no permanent deletion) and requires no permissions. It does not explain the human-approval flow implied by the _approvalId parameter, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Effectively one front-loaded sentence plus a short metadata tag. The bracketed '[v1.0.0; permissions: none]' is terse and slightly ambiguous but doesn't bury the core action.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The reversible-deletion clarification is present; only the approval/idempotency operating context is left entirely to the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents path, _approvalId, and _idempotencyKey fully. The description adds no parameter-level detail (path root constraints, idempotency reuse semantics), so baseline 3 is correct.

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 a file to macOS Trash') plus the mechanism used, which distinguishes it from siblings like finder_move_file or a hypothetical hard-delete. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'no permanent deletion' hints this is the safe/reversible alternative to a real delete, but no explicit when-to-use vs finder_move_file or any exclusion is given. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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