empty_trash

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'empty the trash.' It does not state irreversibility, that objects may be permanently removed, whether confirmation is required, or any authorization requirements.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It is efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse, though its brevity causes incompleteness in other dimensions.

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 destructive operation with no annotations, this description is too thin. It fails to clarify scope, permanence, or behavior when the trash is already empty, and the ambiguity against sibling empty_deleted_assets is material. The output schema exists, so return format is not the gap, but the operational effects are.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to explain.

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 phrase 'Vide la corbeille' clearly states a specific action (empty) and object (trash), so an agent can infer the operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like empty_deleted_assets, purge_deleted_asset, or restore_note, and it does not specify whether it applies to notes, assets, or the whole vault.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trash_note, restore_note, purge_deleted_asset, or empty_deleted_assets. The description provides no preconditions, exclusions, or context for choosing it.

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