drive_trash

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a meaningful behavioral nuance beyond those flags: the file is recoverable for 30 days and this tool will never perform a permanent delete. This substantially aids an agent's expectations about the operation's irreversibility.

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 a single concise sentence with the main action front-loaded and the key qualification in the second clause. Every word adds useful meaning; there is no repetition or 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?

The core trashing behavior is clear, and annotations cover the destructive nature. However, the confirm parameter creates a real ambiguity about whether the action can be undone, and the description does not resolve this. For a simple two-parameter tool this is a notable gap, though the basic call shape remains obvious.

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 only 50%, and fileId has no schema description. The tool description does not explain either parameter or mention that confirm=true is required to proceed. Worse, the confirm schema text says 'This cannot be undone,' which appears to conflict with the description's assertion that the file is recoverable for 30 days, leaving an agent confused about the confirmation semantics.

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 opens with 'Move a file to the trash,' which names a specific verb, resource, and destination. It further distinguishes the tool from permanent deletion by explicitly stating it is recoverable and deliberately not permanent.

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 the tool is for recoverable trashing rather than permanent deletion, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over a concrete alternative or when not to use it. The exclusion is generic and not tied to sibling tools.

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