Move to trash

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: relative path preserved, arrival timestamp appended to the name, dependency on zone trash configuration, rev prerequisite, and restore path. These are exactly the facts an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then failure modes, prerequisites, restore path, and the directory caveat — every sentence carries information. No filler despite the length.

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 destructive 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers safety, failure conditions, prerequisites, and scope limits. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 50% (rev documented, path not). The description compensates by explaining when rev is required ('In a zone with overwrite="rev" the current rev is required') and implying path semantics via 'keeping its relative path'. It does not spell out path format explicitly, leaving a small gap.

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 ('Discard a file by moving it into the trash of its own zone') and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings: 'There is no delete: this is the only way to remove something' and points to move_file for restoration. An agent can pick this over write_file/move_file without opening either schema.

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?

Covers when to use (only removal path), when it fails (zone without trash configured), a prerequisite (read the file first in overwrite="rev" zones), the alternative for the inverse operation (move_file back out), and the directory caveat (trash files one by one). Explicit and complete.

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