drive_trashFile

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 explicitly states '(reversible),' which is a key behavioral trait beyond the basic move action, informing the agent that this is not a permanent deletion. However, it does not elaborate on restore behavior or permissions, but that is acceptable for a simple operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the action (moves to trash), the target (file or folder), and the reversibility. No additional context is needed for correct invocation.

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 description covers 100% of the parameter (fileId) with a clear description: 'File ID or URL to trash.' The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Moves a file or folder to the trash (reversible)' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like drive_moveFile (which moves to a different location) and drive_renameFile. It is not a tautology and precisely conveys the action.

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 when trashing a file or folder is desired, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as permanent deletion or moving. It lacks explicit when/when-not guidance, though the term 'trash' provides some contextual clue.

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