infomaniak_empty_drive_trash

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and not read-only, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Destructive two-phase commit with trash count guard; not undoable.' This explains the safety mechanism (two-phase commit, trash count guard) and explicitly states irreversibility, going well beyond the annotation hints. 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, tightly packed sentence. It leads with the primary action, then adds critical safety caveats ('Destructive', 'two-phase commit', 'not undoable') without any filler. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, destructiveness, and irreversibility. However, it leaves the confirmation_token parameter somewhat ambiguous and does not state prerequisites beyond what the schema provides (drive_id discovery via list_drives). A slightly more explicit note about the two-phase commit flow would make it fully complete.

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 description does not explain either parameter. Schema coverage is only 50% (drive_id has a description, but confirmation_token has none). While 'two-phase commit' hints at why a confirmation_token might exist, the description fails to explicitly connect it to the parameter or explain how to obtain/use it. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it doesn't.

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 uses a specific verb ('Empty') and resource ('entire kDrive trash'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like infomaniak_empty_mailbox_trash (mailbox trash) and infomaniak_remove_drive_trash_item (individual items). The word 'entire' clarifies scope, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clearly communicates that this tool is for emptying the entire trash, implying it should be used when all trash items must be permanently removed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary conditions (e.g., 'use remove_drive_trash_item for individual items'), but the context of 'entire' and the sibling tool names make the intended use clear.

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