Move a folder and its contents to trash as a reversible soft delete, preventing permanent loss. Refuses already-trashed folders to ensure safety.
Move a folder AND ITS CONTENTS to the trash (reversible, soft delete). Refuses if the folder is already trashed, so it can never permanently delete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Id of the folder to trash. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the operation is reversible, affects contents as well as the folder, refuses already-trashed folders, and can never permanently delete. This gives the agent a clear and honest model of side effects.
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 two concise sentences, front-loads the main action and scope, and adds only relevant caveats. No filler or redundant wording is present.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the action, the scope including contents, the reversibility, and a key error/refusal condition. An agent has enough context to 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?
The schema already fully covers the single required parameter, and the description repeats the core semantic: 'Id of the folder to trash.' It adds no additional detail such as ID format, validation rules, or source of the ID, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 tool moves a folder and its contents to the trash, describing the action, resource, and side effects. It is obvious this is the soft-delete operation for folders and is distinct from password operations or folder restoration.
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 when the tool applies and its limits: it is a reversible, soft delete and refuses to act on an already-trashed folder. It does not explicitly name alternatives like restore_folder or permanent deletion, but the boundaries are clear enough for an agent to select the correct operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.