basecamp_trash_recording

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only indicates the action 'trash' without disclosing whether it is permanent, requires special permissions, or cascades to related data. The lack of safety or reversibility details is a notable gap.

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 a single sentence of nine words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds needed context (the generic nature and examples), with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but sparse. It doesn't mention whether the trash is reversible, what response to expect, or how this tool relates to sibling trash tools, so some contextual information 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%: recording_id has a description, project_id does not. The description adds context that recording_id can refer to any recording type, but it does not explain how to identify the project or format the IDs, leaving some ambiguity for the undocumented project_id.

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 'Trash' and the resource 'any Basecamp recording' with examples (card, todo, message, document), which distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like basecamp_trash_card and basecamp_trash_project. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for any recording type via 'any Basecamp recording', but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases. It leaves the agent to infer when to use this vs. the more specific trash tools.

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