speechify_trash_item

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and delivers nothing: no mention of reversibility, permission requirements, idempotency behavior, or what 'verified' means. For a destructive-named operation this is a critical 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?

It is brief, but brevity here is under-specification rather than economy; the single sentence is grammatically awkward and conveys no actionable content. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

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?

A six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions requires the description to do substantial work, and it does none. An agent could not confidently invoke this tool from the definition alone.

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% across six parameters, including a required idempotency_key, an if_exists enum, and expected_updated_at, and the description explains none of them. The agent cannot infer whether item_id or name identifies the target, or how concurrency checks work.

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 phrase 'Perform verified Speechify trash item' essentially restates the tool name with an unexplained qualifier ('verified'). It never states what trashing actually does to an item or how it differs from siblings like speechify_permanently_delete_item or speechify_restore_item.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion conditions, and no mention of alternatives, despite a crowded sibling set that includes permanent delete, restore, and move. The agent is left to guess whether trashing is the reversible option.

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