trash_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is reversible via 'restore_file', which is helpful, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like whether trashing requires specific permissions, if it affects shared access, what happens to file versions, or if there are rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and well-structured, consisting of two short sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the core function, and the second adds valuable context about reversibility 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 tool's moderate complexity (a single-parameter mutation), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic action and reversibility, though it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, which are not covered by annotations or schema.

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%, with the single parameter 'file_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 a file to trash') and identifies the resource ('a file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'permanently_delete_file' or 'move_file', which would require more specific language about the temporary nature of trashing versus permanent deletion.

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 usage by mentioning restoration via 'restore_file', suggesting this is for reversible deletion. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'permanently_delete_file' or 'move_file', and doesn't mention prerequisites such as file permissions or ownership.

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