empty_library_trash

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

The annotation destructiveHint: true already signals destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the operation is permanent ('Permanently empty') and requires an ADMIN role, both of which are behavioral traits beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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 sentence of seven words, directly conveying purpose and mandatory permission. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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 operation with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient detail: what action is performed, the irreversibility, and the required access level. No additional side effects or return values need explanation.

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 schema has one parameter (library_id) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what library_id refers to or how to obtain it, despite needing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. The parameter name is self-explanatory but the tool description provides zero additional meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('empty') and resource ('library's trash') with a clear scope ('permanently'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_library by targeting the trash rather than the library itself. The inclusion of 'Requires ADMIN' adds a useful permission note.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the name and phrasing imply it is for permanently deleting trashed items. The administrative requirement offers some context, yet there is no explicit comparison to other library-related tools such as delete_library or scan_library.

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