move_to_trash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without any details about error handling, confirmation, or whether the operation is reversible. The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds little behavioral 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 short and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first line. The 'Args' section is somewhat redundant with the schema but does not add significant clutter, keeping the description concise and scannable.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, leaving gaps in understanding when to use it and what to expect. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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. The only parameter 'paths' is described as 'List of paths to move to trash', which is redundant with the tool action and schema type. It adds no additional semantics such as path format, allowed types, or constraints.

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 clearly states the action ('Move files or folders to the Trash') with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like empty_trash, though the uniqueness is evident from the name and context.

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 usage is implied: when you want to move files or folders to the Trash. The description provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous and no sibling tool serves the same function directly.

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