Permanently delete a file

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

Annocations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, but the description goes much further: no undo, no 30-day grace, folder descendants are deleted with it, and the API returns an empty 204 mapped to {ok:true}. This gives the agent a realistic model of what invoking it actually does.

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?

Every sentence carries meaningful information: the destructive nature is front-loaded, the sibling alternative is named, the permission requirement is explicit, and the return value is specified. Though the description is long, no sentence is wasted for a high-stakes destructive tool.

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 destructive annotation, the single parameter with complete schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers all the key operational facts: irreversible action, scope of deletion, authorization need, alternative tool, and return shape. An agent has enough to decide whether to use this tool and what the outcome looks like.

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%: file_id is already documented in detail, including examples of where to find it and notes that folders and shared-drive items count as files. The description adds context about folders and descendants, but does not substantially add new meaning to the parameter itself, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action (permanently delete a file), the resource (file), and the critical scope (bypassing trash with no undo). It explicitly differentiates itself from trash_file, so an agent can distinguish between destructive and reversible deletion without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use trash_file unless the user has confirmed permanent, unrecoverable deletion. It also states the permission prequisite (ownership or organizer on a shared drive), so the agent knows when the tool is callable and when it is not.

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