Move Basecamp Item to Trash

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real substance beyond that: cascade deletion of contained items (todos inside a trashed list), Basecamp's deferred permanent purge, and restoration via basecamp_restore with the same ID preserved. Only the retention timeframe remains unspecified ('after some time').

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope. The long type enumeration is justified because it defines applicability, though 'The items in it go too, for example the todos of a todo list' is slightly redundant with the preceding list.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what it accepts, that deletion cascades, that removal is deferred and recoverable, and which tool undoes it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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 description coverage is 100% for the single recording_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by clarifying that the ID is polymorphic across nine distinct entity types, which meaningfully expands what an agent understands recording_id can accept.

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+resource ('Move an item to the trash') and enumerates exactly which Basecamp entity types qualify (todo list, group, todo, message, comment, document, folder, upload, kanban card). This lets an agent determine applicability without consulting siblings.

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?

Clearly scoped to trashing, and it names basecamp_restore as the recovery path, which implicitly tells the agent when this action is reversible. It does not, however, contrast this tool with alternatives like basecamp_move_todo or basecamp_update_* or state any precondition (e.g. permissions).

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