skill_trash_user_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation is a move to trash rather than a delete, specifies the destination format (trash/assets/<skill_name>/<timestamp>__<relative_path>), details path restrictions for different skill types, and notes that operations are logged. This is comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each section (Purpose, Policy, Args, Returns) earns its place with unique information. The bulleted policy list is scannable, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers action, constraints, target path, parameter meanings, and logging behavior. The return values are already depicted in the output schema, so no further explanation is needed. There are no significant gaps for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 schema provides zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. The Args section explicitly defines 'name' as 'Skill name' and 'path' as 'Relative path within the skill directory,' which adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema. The Policy section further clarifies valid path patterns, making the parameters well-understood.

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 action: 'Move a user-created asset or note into trash instead of deleting it.' The verb 'move' and resource 'user-created asset or note' precisely define the tool's scope. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool skill_trash_user_skill, which trashes an entire skill, by focusing on individual assets/notes.

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 Policy section provides clear usage boundaries: it enumerates exactly which subtrees are allowed for bundled/Anthropic skills, states core assets cannot be trashed, and explains that user-created skills allow any asset path. This effectively tells the agent when the tool applies and when it does not, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios.

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