empty_trash

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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true; the description adds the crucial facts that deletion is permanent and irreversible, that user-placed items are included, and that macOS may surface an OS-level permission prompt. These are exactly the behavioral details annotations cannot convey.

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 what gets destroyed, followed by irreversibility, the call precondition, and the OS prompt. Every sentence carries information an agent needs before invoking.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, irreversibility, confirmation gate, call precondition, and a possible OS interruption. Nothing needed to invoke it safely is missing.

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 already says confirm "Must be true," so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the parameter as a safety gate ("Requires confirm: true"), adding intent framing beyond the schema's bare constraint, though not new mechanics.

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 ("Permanently delete everything in the Trash") and adds scope detail — including items the user placed there themselves — that separates it from the sibling move_to_trash. An agent can pick the right tool 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?

Gives an explicit precondition ("Only call after the user explicitly asks to empty the Trash") rather than implied usage. The distinction from move_to_trash is implicit in the verb choice but the gating condition is unambiguous.

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