icloud_trash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the single most important behavioral trait for a destructive-looking operation: the move is recoverable via icloud_restore. It omits secondary behavior such as name-collision handling in the trash or whether the source path must exist, but the critical reversibility signal is present.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the action and resource and appending the recovery route as a compact parenthetical.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers action, target, and reversibility adequately for a one-parameter tool. Remaining gaps (trash name collisions, error conditions) are minor.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the schema provides no guidance on 'path'. The description adds only that the target may be either a file or a folder; it says nothing about path format, relative vs absolute, or whether the path must already exist.

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 a file or folder to the iCloud trash'), and the scope distinguishes it from icloud_move (relocate) and any permanent-delete sibling. The parenthetical naming icloud_restore makes the operation's nature unambiguous.

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 makes clear this is the non-destructive removal path and points at icloud_restore for reversal, which is the primary decision an agent faces. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., overwriting an existing trash entry or deleting permanently).

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