keepit_trash_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that removal goes to 'Deleted Items (trash)', implying a recoverable soft-delete rather than permanent destruction, which is genuinely useful. However, it omits permissions/auth requirements, whether the move can be undone or how, and any return/confirmation 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and destination with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action but is thin on the details that matter most for a destructive operation: reversibility, required access, and what happens on success. Adequate but not complete.

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?

Only one parameter (item_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond 'the item to move to trash', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (move) and resource (item) plus the exact destination (Deleted Items/trash), so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, but 'trash' is distinct enough from the list/get/create/append siblings that an agent can place it correctly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives (e.g., there is no permanent-delete sibling named, but also no statement about when trashing is appropriate). The agent must infer usage purely from the verb.

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