trash_sessions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful behavioral fact that the effect is recoverable via the macOS Trash, which is not derivable from the annotations. It does not cover partial-failure behavior or whether trashing a session cascades to its takes.

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 and ending with the most decision-relevant caveat (recoverable). No filler.

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, the description plus annotations cover the essentials: what it does, that it is destructive, and that it is recoverable. The remaining gap is behavioral scope, e.g. whether takes inside a trashed session are also trashed.

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% and the single parameter 'sessions' is documented as 'Project/folder' identifiers. The description adds nothing beyond the schema about the array format, ordering, or identifier syntax, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Move whole sessions to the macOS Trash.' The word 'whole' scopes the action to complete sessions, which is clearer than a bare 'delete'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling move_sessions or trash_takes, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description never mentions the obvious alternatives in the sibling list (move_sessions, trash_takes) or any precondition, so the agent gets no routing help beyond the tool's name.

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