google_drive_deletePermanently delete a file from Google Drive using its file ID. This cannot be undone; prefer moving to trash for recoverable removal.
Permanently delete a file from Drive. IRREVERSIBLE — prefer google_drive_trash (recoverable).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fileId | Yes | Drive file ID. | |
| account | No | Account nickname to use. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.30Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well on the biggest risk: it declares the operation IRREVERSIBLE and contrasts it with the recoverable trash path. It stops short of covering permissions/ownership requirements or whether shared users lose access, which would matter for a delete.
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 tight sentences; the destructive nature is front-loaded and the fallback suggestion follows immediately. No filler.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the decisive behavioral fact (irreversibility) and the alternative. It could additionally note permission/ownership prerequisites, but nothing critical to a correct call is missing.
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 both parameters (fileId, account) are documented inline, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or format detail about fileId beyond what the schema already states.
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 (delete) and resource (file from Drive) with the crucial scope qualifier 'permanently'. It is immediately distinguishable from google_drive_trash in the sibling list.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent: 'prefer google_drive_trash (recoverable)' names the alternative and the condition (recoverability) that should select it. This is exactly the when-not guidance a destructive tool needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.