Empty Trash

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by spelling out blast radius: folders inside Trash are removed too, omission of accountId widens the operation to every accessible account, and there is no undo. The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds what actually gets destroyed and how wide the reach is. Only the per-account response shape is touched on lightly in one clause, which is why this is a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Front-loads the destructive action and the permanence warning, then packs the alternative routing into short fragments. Those fragments ("Only some messages: deleteMessages; spam: emptyJunk") are a bit telegraphic, though nothing is wasted or repetitive.

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?

A single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, and the description covers the key risks an agent would otherwise miss: nested-folder deletion, the all-accounts default, irreversibility, and the fact that the result is a per-account status. Nothing essential to invoking it safely is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents accountId, including the all-accounts fallback when it's omitted. The description echoes that same fact slightly differently ("every account MCP clients may use"), which reinforces the risk but adds little new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Permanently delete everything in Trash") plus the exact scope: the whole container including nested folders, for one account or all accessible accounts. It is immediately distinguishable from deleteMessages and emptyJunk, which it names.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives with the condition that selects them: partial message deletion goes to deleteMessages, junk mail goes to emptyJunk. The accountId semantics also make the one-account-versus-all-accounts choice explicit rather than inferred.

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