drive_trash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action but does not explain consequences like whether the file can be recovered, how sharing permissions are affected, or whether the operation is reversible. This leaves the agent unaware of important side effects.

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 that immediately states the action. It contains no fluff or redundancy, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimal and incomplete for a mutation operation without annotations. It does not address recoverability, effects on sharing, or the fact that trashed files may still occupy storage. The presence of drive_untrash implies reversibility but is not stated, leaving the description under-informative for an agent.

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 input schema defines a single required file_id parameter with no description, and the tool description adds no meaning to it. The phrase 'a file' doesn't explicitly map to file_id or explain how to obtain/format the ID. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 clearly states the tool moves a file to the trash, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from related tools like drive_delete (permanent deletion) and drive_untrash (restoration), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention trade-offs such as recoverability versus permanent deletion, or when trash is preferred over delete. The description lacks context for selecting among sibling drive tools.

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