trash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: the operation is reversible with a 90-day retention window. It says nothing about revision-conflict behavior, permissions, or what happens to an entry already trashed, which matters for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the core action plus its scope and reversibility are front-loaded. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation leave the agent without the semantics of expected_revision or reason, and without any indication of failure modes. For a mutating tool this is inadequate despite the useful reversibility note.

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, yet it explains none of the three parameters. 'Exactly one active entry' loosely gestures at the id, but expected_revision (optimistic concurrency) and reason are entirely undisclosed in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('move ... entry to ... trash') and scopes it to 'exactly one active entry', which separates it from bulk operations and from the sibling restore/list_trash. It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly, so it falls just short of 5.

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 phrase 'exactly one active entry' implies when this tool applies (single-entry retirement) and the 'reversible 90-day' framing hints that restore exists as the undo path, but no alternative or precondition is stated outright. Usage must be inferred rather than read.

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