empty_trash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses that the operation is permanent deletion, requires a confirmation parameter, and that setting confirm to false/null results in a dry-run returning counts. This fully informs the agent of the tool's behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds the essential confirmation requirement. No extraneous text, fully front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. However, it does not mention what happens if the trash is already empty or any side effects, leaving minor gaps. Still, it is quite complete for a simple destructive 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the effect of the confirm parameter: confirming deletion vs. preview. This avoids any ambiguity about the parameter's role.

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 explicitly states the action ('permanently delete') and the resource ('all bookmarks currently in the trash collection'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like bookmark_manage or list_raindrops.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (to empty trash) and provides critical usage guidance: requires 'confirm: true' to execute, and without it returns counts. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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