file_trash_clearPermanently deletes all files in the fnOS NAS recycle bin to reclaim storage. This irreversible write operation can optionally target a specific trash path.
清空回收站（危险写操作，不可恢复）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | NAS 主机地址（IP 或域名） | |
| path | No | 回收站路径，默认清空全部 | |
| port | No | NAS 端口，如 5667（HTTPS）/5666（HTTP）/443 | |
| scheme | No | 传输协议 | |
| profile | No | 独立 session profile 名称，默认使用 default |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does surface the single most important trait: this is a dangerous write operation whose effects are irreversible. However, it omits permission/auth requirements, whether a confirmation step exists, and the scope question (whole bin vs the optional path parameter, which the schema says defaults to clearing everything).
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 tightly-worded sentence with the destructive warning front-loaded in parentheses. There is no filler, though the extreme brevity is the same trait that leaves usage and scope under-explained.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the critical destructive/irreversible caveat is present. For a no-annotation destructive tool with five optional parameters, though, the description is not fully complete: it gives no guidance on when to invoke it or what scope it affects.
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 all five parameters (host, path, port, scheme, profile) are documented in the schema itself; the description adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 is 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?
States a specific verb and resource (清空回收站 = clear the recycle bin) that an agent can map directly to the operation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling file_team_trash_clear, which is a separate 'clear trash' tool for a different scope (team vs personal).
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as file_trash_list (inspect first) or file_trash_restore. The danger warning implies caution but does not tell the agent under what conditions this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.