things_trash_item

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

The description discloses important behavioral boundaries beyond the annotations: it moves rather than permanently deletes, includes checklist contents, requires a separate Trash grant, and does not empty the Trash or delete projects/areas/tags. This meaningfully complements the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations with concrete side-effect context.

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 tightly structured: the main action and scope come first, followed by prerequisites and boundary clarifications. Each sentence adds necessary information without repetition or fluff.

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 tool's destructive nature, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it requires, what side effects it has, and what it explicitly does not do. Combined with the output schema and annotations, an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and safely.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It does so by framing expectedRevision as 'the latest revision', requestId as 'a unique request ID', and target as 'one open to-do'. This helps an agent understand the purpose of each parameter beyond the schema types and patterns, though it does not explicitly name the parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('one open to-do') with an explicit destination ('Things Trash on the Mac'), and clarifies scope by including checklist contents and excluding projects, areas, and tags. This clearly differentiates it from sibling operations like restore, update, or permanent delete.

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 provides actionable usage context: read and review the target first, requires the latest revision, a unique request ID, write permission, and a separate Trash grant. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the prerequisites and safety warning give clear operational guidance.

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