things_trash_item

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, but the description adds important behavioral nuance: the item is moved to Trash rather than permanently deleted, it includes checklists, and it does not empty Trash or delete projects/areas/tags. It also discloses the separate local Trash grant requirement, going well beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is tight and front-loaded. The main action appears in the first sentence, followed by prerequisite and exclusion details—each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

Given the three required parameters, the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is fully adequate. It covers what the tool does, what it affects, its prerequisites, and its non-effects, so an agent can select and invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'latest revision' maps to expectedRevision, 'unique request ID' maps to requestId, and 'one to-do... target' maps to target. It doesn't enumerate all nested target properties, but the schema's const on kind and id pattern fill that gap.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Move one to-do... to Things Trash on the Mac.' It also clarifies scope with 'including any checklist it contains' and what it does not do ('Does not permanently delete, empty Trash, or delete projects, areas or tags'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like things_move_item.

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 gives clear preconditions: 'Read it and review the target first' and 'Requires the latest revision, a unique request ID, ordinary write permission, and the separate local Trash grant.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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