empty_trash

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds valuable context: the operation is irreversible and permanently deletes. This goes beyond the generic annotation and gives the agent a clear warning about consequences. No contradiction with 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 a single sentence with a strong leading warning (⚠️ DESTRUCTIVE) that immediately signals the risk. It states the action, the two usage modes, and the irreversible consequence with no wasted words. The structure is ideal for front-loading critical information.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers the two possible operations and the irreversible nature. It does not mention return values, but that is not required since no output schema exists. The missing guidance on when to prefer this over restore_from_trash is a minor gap, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both confirm and documents are described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as the optional nature of documents and the required confirm flag. It implicitly references the two modes but adds no new semantic detail, so it sits at the baseline for full schema 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 clearly states the verb (permanently delete) and the resource (documents from the trash), and also covers the two operational modes (specific documents or entire trash). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like restore_from_trash or delete_document, but the resource focus is evident enough for an agent to infer its 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 implies when to use it (when you need to purge trashed documents), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as restore_from_trash for recovering documents or delete_document for removing a document outside the trash. The 'or empty the entire trash' clause gives a usage nuance but lacks exclusion guidance.

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