trash_paths

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does disclose real behavior: the target is a .del directory (implying recoverable rather than permanent removal), and paths modified after preview are refused, a meaningful staleness guard. It omits what accept_warnings does, whether partial failures are possible, and what the caller gets back.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the preconditions. Every sentence adds a distinct constraint.

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 four-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the workflow gate well but leaves accept_warnings unexplained and says nothing about outcome or recoverability. Adequate, not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it partially does: it constrains 'paths' and 'recursive' by requiring them to match the preview, and explains 'ticket' by origin. 'accept_warnings' is never mentioned anywhere, leaving one of four parameters with no semantics at all.

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 concrete verb and destination: 'Move previewed paths into the workspace .del directory.' The word 'previewed' and the ticket requirement implicitly position it downstream of preview_delete, but siblings are never named, so differentiation relies on the agent already knowing the workflow.

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?

Gives a hard precondition: the ticket must come from preview_delete with scope="trash" and matching paths and recursive flag, which tells the agent to call preview first. It does not explicitly contrast with purge_del or say what to do when paths changed after preview beyond 'refused'.

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