drive_trash_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely states the action without disclosing side effects like reversibility, permission requirements, or whether trashing is permanent. This is a mutation tool, and the lack of behavioral context is a clear 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with zero wasted words. It is perfectly sized for the simple action it describes.

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 two-parameter tool with complete schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could be more complete by noting the file is moved to the Drive trash (not permanently deleted) and possibly mentioning that the action is reversible.

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 input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (fileId, accountId), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter info, but the baseline for high schema coverage is 3.

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 action ('Move') and the resource ('a file to trash in Google Drive'), making it distinct from siblings like drive_move_file or gmail_trash. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage is implied from the description; it's obvious you use this tool to trash a file. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions.

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