File Team Trash Clear

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a dangerous write operation and that the result is irreversible, which is valuable safety context. However, it omits other key behavioral traits such as required permissions, authentication needs, or whether all team-trash contents are permanently destroyed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action first and appends the destructive warning. Every part earns its place with no wasted wording.

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?

The description covers purpose and a critical safety warning, and output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, for a dangerous mutation with no annotations and six parameters, the lack of usage context and permission details leaves the definition only minimally complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters (vol, host, port, scheme, profile, team_dir). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('清空' = clear/empty) and resource ('团队空间回收站' = team space recycle bin), clearly distinguishing it from personal-trash and restore siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, but the 'team space' qualifier provides the necessary scope differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like file_team_trash_list, file_team_trash_bin, or file_team_trash_restore. It only warns that the operation is dangerous and irreversible, but leaves the agent to infer prerequisites and alternatives.

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