Delete selected variants from a Takes session by moving them to the macOS Trash, while their text stays in history.
Move variants to the macOS Trash (their text stays in history).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session | Yes | Session as 'Project/folder', an absolute path, or its id (from get_session). An old path still works after a rename or move. | |
| variants | Yes | Variant ids from get_session. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: deletion is a move to macOS Trash, and the underlying text persists in history. That tells the agent the effect is recoverable in principle, which the annotations alone do not convey.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with the parenthetical reserved for the one piece of non-obvious information. No filler or repetition of schema 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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral fact (soft delete, history retained). It is slightly thin on whether the operation is reversible via a restore path or what a caller should expect afterward, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.
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%, with both 'session' and 'variants' fully documented in the schema, so the description carries no additional parameter burden. It adds no format, id-provenance, or batch-size detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 variants to the macOS Trash") and clarifies the operation is a soft delete rather than permanent removal. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbours like delete_post_variants or trash_takes, so the agent must infer the target type from the name alone.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. With siblings such as delete_post_variants, trash_takes, and trash_sessions in the toolset, an explicit statement of which variant scope this covers would have been valuable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.