files_trash_clean

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 for a destructive, likely irreversible operation. It conveys only the scope ('entire trash') and says nothing about permanence, confirmation, required permissions, or what happens to restorable items.

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 four-word phrase with no filler and the destructive action front-loaded. It is appropriately minimal for a zero-parameter tool, though brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine economy.

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 destructive bulk-delete with no annotations, no output schema, and several closely named siblings, the description is too thin. An agent gets the action but not the risk profile, the distinction from files_trash_clean_resourceId, or any confirmation semantics.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level, and schema coverage is reported at 100%.

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 phrase '휴지통 전체 삭제' states a concrete verb (delete) and resource (entire trash), and the qualifier 전체 ('entire') implicitly separates it from the sibling files_trash_clean_resourceId, which scopes to a single resource. It never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or alternatives such as files_trash_restore or files_trash_clean_resourceId. The agent must infer that this bulk-empties the trash rather than targeting one item.

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