dms_trash_routine

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether this is a persistent account-wide setting, what permissions are required, whether the change applies retroactively to already-trashed items, or what the response is. Only the mutation intent is implied.

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?

A single front-loaded phrase with zero waste. It is a complete verb+object statement rather than a tautology, though the extreme brevity leaves it close to under-specified.

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 one-parameter settings tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It is missing any indication of scope (account vs. workspace), permission requirements, and how it relates to the other trash tools.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents its allowed values (0, 5, 15, 30, 50). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it merely restates the parameter's concept — so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource in Korean: setting the trash auto-delete cycle (휴지통 자동 삭제 주기 설정). An agent can tell this configures a retention interval rather than listing, restoring, or emptying trash. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the other trash-related siblings (dms_trash_list, files_trash_clean, files_trash_restore).

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a settings mutation rather than an operation on trashed files, with several trash-related siblings available that it could confuse this with.

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