clear_recycle_bin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. 'Clear' hints at an irreversible destructive action, but the description never states that contents are permanently removed, that the action cannot be undone, or what permissions are required.

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?

Three words with zero waste is front-loaded, but for a destructive, irreversible operation the definition is under-specified rather than concise. Brevity here removes information the agent needs instead of trimming noise.

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?

With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only source of context, and it supplies none of the behavioral details (permanence, recoverability, required privileges) that matter for a clear/delete operation.

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 tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100% over an empty property set), so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies.

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 names a verb ('clear') and a resource ('recycle bin'), so the basic operation is identifiable, but it is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name and adds no scope detail. It does not distinguish this from siblings like list_recycle_bin, get_recycle_bin_status, or reduce_recycle_bin that operate on the same resource.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the other recycle-bin siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing items present in the bin. The agent receives no routing guidance at all.

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