delete_trash_item

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the practical consequence that the item is permanently destroyed and cannot be recovered, and clarifies that only a single item is affected. This enriches the safety profile without contradicting the annotations.

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 core purpose and irreversibility warning are front-loaded, and the Args/Returns structure is easy to scan. There is minor redundancy between 'permanently delete,' 'irreversible,' and 'cannot be recovered,' but it does not detract from clarity.

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 one-parameter destructive operation, the description covers the parameter's source, the effect of the action, and the expected return. Combined with the annotations and the presence of an output schema, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only defines trash_path as a string with no description, while the tool description explains that it is the identifier returned by list_trash and provides a concrete example format. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('delete'), a specific resource ('single item from the trash bin'), and the permanence of the action. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like empty_trash and restore_trash_item by the 'single item' and 'from the trash bin' scope.

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 name alternatives or state when to use restore_trash_item vs. empty_trash. It implies selection through 'from the trash bin' and 'irreversible,' but leaves the routing decision to the agent.

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