trash_folderMoves a folder and all its subfolders and drawings to the trash, where members can restore it within 30 days before permanent deletion.
Moves one folder to the trash, with its subfolders and every drawing in them. Members can restore it from Trash for 30 days, as one unit; after that it is deleted for good. In Team, every member loses it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A folder id from list_folders. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well past the annotations, which only say destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description discloses the cascade scope (subfolders and all drawings), the 30-day restore window treatable as one unit, permanent deletion afterward, and that a Team folder disappears for every member — exactly the blast-radius facts an agent needs before a destructive call.
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 tight sentences with the destructive action front-loaded, followed by recovery and permanence, then team impact. The fragment "In Team, every member loses it" is slightly clipped but earns its place by conveying a high-stakes consequence.
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 no output schema, everything material is covered: what is trashed, what comes with it, how long recovery is possible, when it becomes permanent, and the multi-user consequence. No output schema exists, so no return-value explanation is owed.
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 that it comes from list_folders, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about id format or validation, which is acceptable but not additive.
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 ("Moves one folder to the trash") and immediately scopes the cascade: subfolders and every drawing inside them. The word "one" plus the folder focus distinguishes it from the sibling trash_drawing, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either 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 implied by the object being acted on (a folder rather than a drawing), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of restore_folder as the inverse operation. An agent can infer the routing but must do the inference itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.