empty_trash

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

While the annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, the description adds crucial context beyond that: the operation is IRREVERSIBLE and global, affecting everything in the trash. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the irreversibility warning, the global scope clarification, and the required pre-call confirmation step. No filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter destructive tool with an output schema present, the description supplies all essential context: what is deleted, how broadly, the irreversibility, and the required user-confirmation workflow. An agent has enough to correctly decide when and how to invoke it.

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, so the schema fully covers the input surface. With 100% schema coverage and no parameters, the description has no additional parameter-level semantics to provide, and the baseline of 4 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Permanently delete ALL items'), the exact resource ('the Zotero trash'), and emphasizes the global scope ('not just items you recently trashed'). It unambiguously distinguishes this from operations like trash_items or inspect_trash.

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?

It explicitly instructs to call inspect_trash first and to always confirm with the user, providing clear preconditions and workflow guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, but the prerequisites and global-destructive warning make the intended context clear.

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