panelica_file_manager_delete_v1_files_trash_id

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with an explicit warning that the resource is permanently removed. It also discloses the required 'files:delete' scope and HTTP method, adding valuable operational context beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: operation, then HTTP method, category, scope, and warning. Every line contributes meaningful information with no filler.

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 simple destructive delete with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description contains the essential facts: what it does, the endpoint, required auth scope, and irreversibility. No output schema is present, but none is needed for this operation.

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%, with clear descriptions for both 'id' and 'user_id'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the endpoint path, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Permanent delete from trash' and the HTTP endpoint DELETE /v1/files/trash/:id, giving a precise verb, resource, and scope. The 'permanent' qualifier and trash/:id path clearly distinguish this from sibling restore and empty-trash operations.

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?

Usage is only implied by the operation name and 'permanent delete' semantics; the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over restore or empty-trash. It provides no alternative routing or when-not-to-use guidance, though the intended use case is reasonably inferable.

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