trash_profile

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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the annotations already indicate a non-read, non-permanent mutation. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: profiles keep cookies and sessions, running profiles are closed first, and emptying the bin is unavailable to the agent. These go beyond the annotations and provide crucial operational 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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct value: primary action, non-destructive guarantee + recovery path, and two behavioral constraints (closing running profiles, no emptying). No filler or redundancy; the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations already covering mutation/non-destructiveness, the description explains what happens to the profile, how it can be recovered, the effect on running instances, and an agent-side limitation. An agent has everything necessary to invoke this tool 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 100%: the 'profile' parameter is already documented as 'Profile name exactly as list_profiles returns it'. The tool description adds no further parameter-specific guidance, so it meets the baseline of 3 without exceeding it.

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 a profile to Morfiade's recycle bin') and immediately clarifies what it is not ('Nothing is erased'), which distinguishes it from deletion and from restore_profile. It also notes that a running profile is closed first, differentiating it from a plain stop_profile.

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 implies the use case: temporarily removing a profile while preserving cookies/sessions, with restore_profile as the recovery path. It explicitly states the agent cannot empty the bin, which sets expectations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this when…', but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it over stop_profile or deletion.

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