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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by explaining this is a soft delete: the file stops being viewable immediately, persists in Trash for a retention window, and can therefore be restored. It also names a concrete failure mode (402 agent_delete_paid) when the account has no Trash. It stops short of describing permission requirements or what dry_run reports.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the critical name-match constraint, the retention behavior, and the error case. Slight redundancy with the schema on the fileName rule, but no padding otherwise.

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 destructive five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the sharpest failure constraint, side effects, recoverability, and an error code. The optional person/project/dry_run parameters are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including fileName 'Exactly as listed'. The description's 'fileName must be the file's listed name or nothing moves' adds only the failure consequence of a mismatch, which is a modest increment over the schema.

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 and resource ('Move one of the member's files to Trash') and disambiguates the tool's name by making clear this is a soft delete, not a permanent one. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling connections_storage_trash_google_drive_files, which sounds like it does the same thing for a different provider.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader infers 'use this to delete a single file' but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, no pointer to list_trash/restore_from_trash as the recovery path, and no mention of when the bulk Google Drive trash sibling is preferred.

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