delete_drive_item

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: permanent deletion, version record removal for files, folder emptiness requirement, and error feedback (child count/summaries). 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 three sentences: purpose, file/folder behavior, permanence note. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy. Front-loaded with key action and then specifics.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return values are covered. The description explains failure conditions for folders, which is crucial. However, it lacks clarity on parameter selection (path vs itemId) and required permissions. Minor gaps prevent a 5.

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 has 3 parameters, each described as 'a string that will be trimmed'—poor semantic value. The description does not clarify how to use drive, path, or itemId, nor the mutual exclusivity implied by the 'not' constraint. Schema coverage is 100% but descriptions are uninformative, and the tool description fails to compensate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Permanently delete a Drive item, meaning a file or folder.' It distinguishes between files and folders and clarifies it's permanent, not archive/trash. This differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_drive (drive-level) and delete_drive_file_comment (comments).

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 provides implicit guidance (folders must be empty) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. No direct comparison to other delete tools (e.g., delete_drive, delete_drive_file_comment) is given, leaving the agent to infer usage context from sibling names.

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