drive_delete

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses irreversibility, authentication requirements, rejection of live paths, the confirmed=true requirement, and instructs to always show the exact path and get explicit confirmation. These are significant behavioral traits not present in 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and irreversibility flag, then covers prerequisites, alternatives, and safety. Every sentence adds value; no filler or redundancy.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation's purpose, prerequisites (must be in trash), alternatives, required confirmation, and safety signal. It is complete for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, giving baseline 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'path' must be a trash path (not a live one) and that 'confirmed' must be true, plus the instruction to show the path to the user. This elevates the parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 delete a file or folder that is already in the Proton Drive trash'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like drive_trash (moves to trash) and drive_empty_trash (clears all trash) by scoping to already-trashed 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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use drive_trash first to move a live item into trash, then pass its trash path here — or drive_empty_trash to clear everything at once.' It also states that live paths are rejected, and requires confirmed=true, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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