qemu_vm_trash_empty

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds that deletion is permanent and that the VM lock is retained by this session, requiring vm_unlock afterwards. This is important behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. The first states the action, the second states the critical lock post-condition. 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?

For a simple, no-parameter destructive operation, the description fully covers scope (all retained entries), permanence, and lock behavior. No output schema is necessary, and the follow-up instruction adds completeness.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. Per rubric, 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4; no additional parameter documentation is needed.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'delete' with a clear resource: 'every retained QEMU trash entry'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qemu_vm_trash_list (listing) and qemu_vm_restore (restoring).

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?

While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the description provides actionable context: after emptying trash, the VM remains locked and the agent should call vm_unlock. This indicates when to perform a follow-up action but does not contrast with other tools.

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