Empty the trash

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: there is no recovery, files are gone, and explicit consent is required. This goes beyond the annotation by warning about irreversibility and the need for prior listing.

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 three sentences with each sentence earning its place: what it does, why it is dangerous, and when it may be called. The warning is front-loaded and no words are 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 low-complexity destructive action with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers irreversibility, consent requirements, and the need to inspect trash first. The optional documents parameter semantics are already fully covered by the schema.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the documents parameter completely. The tool description does not need to restate the parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the description adds no further param meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently destroy trashed documents.' It clearly distinguishes this from other document operations like delete, restore, or list. The title and description align without being tautological.

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 gives explicit usage conditions: never call without the user explicitly asking in the current conversation, and list what is in the trash first. This is strong guidance for a destructive irreversible action and helps an agent decide whether to proceed.

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