trash_film

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those flags by stating the film can be restored from WordPress admin, clarifying that this is not a permanent deletion.

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 compact, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. The one-line argument note is directly useful and does not repeat the entire schema.

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 one-parameter mutation with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the core operation and reversibility. It does not address edge cases like already-trashed films or nonexistent IDs, but the output schema likely covers the response behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides only 'id: Film id,' which is minimal but does clarify that the parameter refers to the film being trashed. For a single integer parameter, this is adequate though thin.

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 ('Move') and a specific resource ('a film to the trash'), making the operation unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from siblings like create_film, get_film, set_rating, and write_review.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: when a film should be moved to the trash. It also adds context that the action is reversible via WordPress admin. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but no sibling tool obviously competes for this operation.

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