empty_trash

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

Annotations already cover destructiveHint and idempotentHint. The description explicitly states irreversibility and permanent destruction, adding clear emphasis on a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not detail what exactly gets destroyed (e.g., nested folders, files) or any permissions required, which could be useful. It does not contradict 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 description is concise and front-loaded with the main action and scope, followed by a clear warning about irreversibility and a return value summary. The 'Returns' section is slightly unnecessary as an output schema exists, but it adds minimal value without clutter.

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 no-parameter, destructive operation, the description is largely complete: it covers the scope, irreversibility, and confirms a confirmation response. It could mention what happens to child items or if the operation is recursive, but these are minor given the simple nature and existing output schema.

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?

Since the tool has no parameters (0 params), the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description is complete regarding parameters – there is nothing missing.

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 a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and resource ('ALL items in the trash bin'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_trash_item' and 'restore_trash_item'. It unambiguously defines the scope and action.

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 implies the use case (emptying the entire trash) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'delete_trash_item' or when not to use it. However, the clear scope and irreversibility inherently guide a cautious agent.

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