drive_trash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and it does little: it doesn't state that trashing is recoverable, whether it fails on already-trashed files, what permissions the caller needs, or what the response contains. For a mutation on user data with zero annotation coverage, that's a notable gap.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is arguably over-terse for what it leaves out, but there is nothing wasteful to trim.

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 tool is simple (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), so the description is barely adequate. Missing reversibility, permission, and error-condition details keep it from being complete for a destructive-adjacent 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?

With a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains fileId fully. The description only alludes to 'a file', adding no format, ID-source, or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (move...to trash) and resource (file in Google Drive), so the action is unambiguous. It doesn't need to distinguish from siblings like drive_upload or drive_create_folder, but it also never positions itself against a hard-delete alternative because none exists in the sibling list.

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 intent is implied by 'to trash' versus a permanent delete, but the description never says when to choose this over other drive operations or what preconditions apply. An agent gets the general context (trash a file) with no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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