infomaniak_remove_drive_trash_item

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, but the description adds context about a two-phase commit, a trashed-item guard, and irreversibility, which are not conveyed by the structured fields. This supplements rather than contradicts the 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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and packs in critical caveats without wasted words.

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 tool involves a destructive, two-phase operation, but the description covers the key risks, scope, and guard. The presence of an output schema and strong annotations fills in return-value and safety details, so the description is sufficient for a competent agent, though it could elaborate on the confirmation_token flow.

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 descriptions cover file_id and drive_id with meaningful context, and the description's 'two-phase commit' hints at the purpose of the confirmation_token parameter, which lacks a schema description. This adds value beyond the raw schema, though it stops short of explaining the token's exact role.

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 ('permanently remove') and resource ('one file or folder from kDrive trash'), clearly differentiating from siblings like infomaniak_empty_drive_trash and infomaniak_restore_drive_trash_item.

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 makes the single-item scope explicit and adds the warning 'not undoable,' which implies this is only for intended deletions rather than restore/empty alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so usage guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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