Organize or Trash Note

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds crucial context: 'Permanent deletion is never used.' This clarifies that trash is reversible, providing a valuable safety guarantee beyond the structured annotation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main operations and then a safety note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool supports three distinct operations (move, rename, trash) with different parameter needs, and the description covers the core purpose and safety. The output schema exists, so return values are covered. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly map each action to its required parameters, but the parameter names and enum values are self-explanatory.

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?

Per context signals, schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no extra parameter-level guidance, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool can move, rename, or trash a note, with a strong safety guarantee that permanent deletion is never used. This specific verb set and resource ('note') distinguish it from siblings like read_note, create_note, and update_note.

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 title 'Organize or Trash Note' and the description clearly imply when to use it: for moving, renaming, or trashing notes. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the action verbs make the intended usage obvious relative to the sibling tools.

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