Delete a trashed item for good

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it spells out the collateral deletion (shares, votes, version history), the irreversibility, and the two concrete failure modes (item missing, item not in trash). That is exactly the extra context a destructive operation needs beyond a hint flag.

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 destructive scope, then the alternative, then the confirmation gate, then failure conditions. No sentence is redundant with another.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, irreversibility, collateral effects, the safe alternative, and error behavior — everything an agent needs before invoking it. Nothing material is left to inference.

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% and the id property description already explains that it is a positive integer obtained from driftnet_search_items with view 'trash'. The description only reinforces the trashed-only constraint rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (permanently delete) and resource (one item already in the trash), and enumerates exactly what is destroyed alongside it (shares, votes, version history). It also names the sibling driftnet_update_item with trashed=true as the reversible counterpart, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly bounds the tool to trashed items and names the alternative for the reversible case (driftnet_update_item with trashed=true). It also adds a procedural gate — 'Confirm with the reader first' — which tells the agent when not to act unilaterally.

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