empty_deleted_assets

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. 'Vide la corbeille' conveys a destructive emptying operation but does not state that all trashed assets are permanently removed or that the action is irreversible; no auth or side-effect context is provided. This is a minimal indication of behavior rather than a transparent disclosure.

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 a single short sentence with no filler. It is compact and front-loads the action and object, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 operation is simple and has no parameters, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, for a destructive no-annotation tool it still omits the irreversible/all-items nature and any caution about side effects, so it is 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema documents 100% of them, so there is no semantic burden on the description. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter explanations are needed.

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 French description 'Vide la corbeille des assets' names the exact action (empty) and the target (assets trash), and its plural/trash-level scope distinguishes it from sibling purge_deleted_asset and empty_trash. This is a clear, specific purpose statement.

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 call this tool versus restore_deleted_asset, purge_deleted_asset, or empty_trash. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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