Move drawing to trash

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: a 30-day restore window, permanent deletion afterward, and the Team-scoped consequence that every member loses the drawing. It omits permission/auth requirements and whether an already-trashed drawing can be re-trashed.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and then the consequences. Every sentence—effect, restore window, Team impact—earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with strong annotation coverage and a documented lifecycle (restorable for 30 days, then permanent), the description is nearly complete. Minor gaps remain around who may trash a drawing and behavior on already-trashed items.

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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter already documents its source (list_drawings or search_drawings). The description adds no format or constraint detail about the identifier, so the schema is doing all the work and baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Moves one drawing to the trash" gives a specific verb and resource, and "one" scopes it as a single-item operation, implicitly separating it from trash_folder. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 implied by the effect described (this is the delete path) and the mention of restore implies restore_drawing is the reversal, but the description never states when to pick this versus move_drawing or trash_folder. An agent can infer intent but gets no explicit routing or prerequisite guidance.

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