wincode_safe_move_to_trash

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so by stating that the tool moves the file rather than permanently deleting it, writes metadata, and targets the project trash/ directory. It does not cover edge-case behaviors like missing files or permissions, but the essential non-destructive behavior is explicit.

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, well-structured sentence with the primary action and destination front-loaded. Every phrase contributes meaning: 'safely', 'obsolete or deleted file', 'project trash/ directory', 'with metadata', and 'instead of permanent deletion'. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 relatively simple tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the target file type, the destination, the metadata behavior, and the safety rationale. It omits minor contextual details such as whether the trash directory is auto-created or what exact metadata is stored, but these are not severe gaps for correct invocation.

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 parameter meanings are already fully documented. The description adds the context that metadata is associated with the move, but it does not explicitly map the optional 'reason' parameter to that metadata. This meets the baseline but does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action: safely moving an obsolete or deleted file into the project trash/ directory. It also conveys the key distinction from permanent deletion, which separates it from any destructive alternative. None of the sibling tools appear to handle deletion or file moving, so this description makes the tool's purpose immediately identifiable.

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 a clear usage context: use this tool when a file is obsolete or should be removed, but permanent deletion is undesirable. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or conditions when not to use it, but the 'instead of permanent deletion' phrasing provides strong practical guidance.

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