files_trash_clean_resourceId

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the critical trait — the deletion is permanent and therefore irreversible — but says nothing about required permissions, confirmation behavior, or error cases.

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 short line with zero padding, and the destructive nature is front-loaded. Slightly terse even for its size, but nothing is wasted.

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, no-output-schema tool the description covers the essentials: what it deletes and that the action is permanent. It omits any routing to alternatives, which matters given the dense trash-related sibling set.

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 there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents resourceId fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what is in the schema, matching the baseline for a fully documented single parameter.

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 and resource: deleting a particular file inside the trash, and flags it as permanent. The word '특정' (specific) scopes it against the bulk sibling files_trash_clean, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer from the name and the word '특정' that this targets one resource rather than emptying the trash wholesale; the alternative files_trash_clean and files_trash_restore are never mentioned.

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