drive_trash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers key behavioral facts: the action is reversible via drive.restore within a 30-day window, and it is gated behind confirm=true. It does not disclose permission requirements or effects on shared/owned files, so it stops short of fully covering the mutation's behavior.

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 with zero waste; the primary action leads and the operational constraint follows. Nothing redundant.

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 destructive-but-recoverable mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the two facts an agent most needs: reversibility window and the confirm gate. Remaining gaps (permissions, shared-item behavior) are minor and largely beyond scope.

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% across all 5 parameters, so the schema already documents name, path, index, occurrence, and confirm. The description only reinforces the confirm requirement, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ("Move") and resource ("file or folder") and target ("the Trash"), and its parenthetical noting restorability implicitly separates it from siblings like drive_delete_forever and drive_empty_trash. An agent can distinguish it from permanent-delete tools without opening any schema.

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?

It states a prerequisite ("Requires confirm=true") and hints at the restore flow by naming drive.restore, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over drive_delete_forever or drive_empty_trash. Usage is implied rather than contrasted with alternatives.

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