trash_takes

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully adds that the deletion is recoverable via the macOS Trash and that non_keepers targets only unstarred takes. That is meaningful mitigating context beyond the annotations, though it does not say how to restore a trashed take or whether take numbering is affected.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the operation and its reversibility stated first and the selection modes second. Every clause 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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description plus 100%-covered schema gives an agent enough to call it correctly. It is only missing the outcome details (what happens to take indices, confirmation of transport to Trash) that would make it fully self-contained.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the relationship the schema does not express: takes and non_keepers are alternative ways to select what gets trashed, and non_keepers has a precise semantic ("without a star").

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Move takes to the macOS Trash") that clearly separates it from the sibling trash_sessions, and it names the resource being acted on. It stops short of differentiating itself from other take-level operations such as cut_take or delete_variants, so it is clear but not sibling-complete.

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 explains the two invocation modes (explicit take numbers vs. non_keepers=true), which is real usage guidance for this tool. However, it gives no when-to-use/when-not context relative to alternatives like cut_take or delete_variants, and no prerequisites or warnings about a session needing to exist.

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