empty_trash

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

The description discloses the full sequence of operations (discover Trash, select it, mark deleted, expunge) and the return value (count of deleted messages). Without annotations, this provides good transparency. It does not mention idempotency or behavior when Trash is empty, but the core behavior is clear.

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 three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second explains the mechanism, and the third details the return value. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool, the description covers what the tool does, how it works, and what it returns. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, this is complete and sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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?

The tool has no parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter-level details. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly does not waste space on non-existent parameters.

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 clear verb ('Empty') and specific resource ('the Trash folder'). It explains the discovery mechanism (\Trash SPECIAL-USE) and actions (mark +FLAGS \Deleted, EXPUNGE), which distinguishes it from siblings like delete_folder (which removes a folder) or bulk_delete (which targets arbitrary messages).

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 implies usage for emptying the Trash folder but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use this to clean up all trashed messages; for deleting specific messages in other folders, use bulk_delete'). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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