Trash Change

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Move a change to trash' hints at a softer, possibly reversible state than deletion, but it never confirms reversibility, whether restore_change can undo it, what permissions are required, or how related data is affected.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity borders on under-specification rather than being wasteful, but structurally it is clean.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a fully undocumented parameter, this description is too thin. An agent cannot determine reversibility, side effects, or expected response from it.

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?

The single parameter change_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about its format or origin. It does not compensate for the gap; only the name implies it identifies the change.

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: moving a change into a trash state. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling delete_change or explain what 'trash' means relative to deletion, leaving the agent to guess at the semantic difference.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over delete_change, nor any mention that restore_change is the inverse operation. The agent is given no conditions that select this tool versus its close siblings.

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