Empty the trash

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral context: it removes attachment files from disk, is irreversible, and uses an interlock that aborts the call on count mismatch. This fully informs the agent of consequences.

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 four sentences with no filler. It front-loads the destructive action, then states consequences, prerequisite, failure mode, and usage condition in logical order. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers user consent, the required preliminary call, irreversibility, attachment file impact, and refusal behavior. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values, and the groupId behavior is already documented in the input 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, already documenting both parameters. The description goes further by explaining why expectedCount matters as an interlock and explicitly instructing the caller to source it from zotero_list_trash.totalResults, which adds practical meaning beyond the schema's minimal wording.

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 and resource: 'Permanently erase every item in the trash.' It also clarifies the scope (the entire trash) and the irreversible nature, which distinguishes it from related tools like zotero_delete_items.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('Only use this when the user has explicitly asked to empty the trash'), a required prerequisite ('call zotero_list_trash first and pass its totalResults'), and a failure condition when not to proceed ('If the two disagree the call is refused and nothing is deleted').

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