drive_trash_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It reveals the 30-day retention, the absence of permanent-delete endpoints, the dry-run behavior without confirm, the folder-contents risk, and the already-in-trash refusal. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive-capable tool.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: action, safety model, two guards, folder hazard, and edge case. It is front-loaded with the core operation and then layers necessary cautions in a logical order for a risky tool.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is unusually complete. It explains all preconditions, guard behaviors, scope of effect, and failure cases. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to invoke it 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%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of confirm, expectedName, and confirmFolder, but it mostly restates what the schema already says rather than adding substantial new parameter-level semantics. Some extra color like 'wrong or stale id is refused' is helpful but not transformative.

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 precise verb and resource: move one Google Drive file or folder to the Drive trash via files.update with trashed=true. The singular 'one' distinguishes it from the sibling drive_trash_files, and it clarifies this is a restore-able trash action, not a permanent delete.

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 clear usage context: it explains the confirm flag guard, the required confirmFolder for folders, and that already-trashed files are refused. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools such as drive_trash_files, so the when-not-to-use guidance relies on inference from the word 'one'.

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