drive_trash_file

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 discloses that the action is destructive but recoverable for 30 days, that folder trashing cascades, and that the response echoes the resolved target for verification. It also explicitly states the absence of a hard-delete tool, making the tool's behavior fully transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core action and uses compact, focused sentences. It efficiently covers recoverability, no hard-delete tool, folder cascade, and parameter semantics. A minor redundancy exists between 'recoverable, not deleted' and 'deliberately trash', but overall the structure is tight.

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 action, the description covers purpose, parameter format, behavioral consequences, and return values (resolved name, path, id, and restore instructions). The output schema exists, and the description adds the verification guidance. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 only defines 'file' as a string with no description, so the description adds essential meaning by specifying it accepts either a Drive file id or a path from My Drive root. This directly compensates for the 0% schema coverage. It could be more precise about path syntax, but the provided semantics are adequate.

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 states a specific verb (move to trash) and resource (Drive file or folder), and explicitly distinguishes from permanent deletion by noting the item is recoverable. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like drive_move_file and drive_rename_file.

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 explains that this is the trash operation and that no hard-delete tool exists in the server, which informs when this tool should be used. It also warns that trashing a folder cascades to its contents. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools like drive_move_file, but the purpose and context are clear enough.

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