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

The annotations already mark it destructive and non-read-only, but the description goes further: it details that content is preserved, subfolders get new slugs, addresses are lost, and permission is required. It also covers the special Marketing-folder case and explains address changes.

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 front-loads the action and packs necessary side effects into a few sentences. It is longer than the minimal, but each clause earns its place, including the workspace-specific exception. No redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions that the result names every address that ended and started, giving a clue to return value. It covers permissions, content preservation, slug behavior, and special workspace case. It is nearly complete for a delete operation.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no direct parameter-level semantics for folder_id or workspace_id. It implies that some folders (Marketing) may not be deletable and permission matters, which is context about folder_id, but not a full parameter explanation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states 'Delete a folder' – a specific verb and resource. The following explanation that sites and sub-folders are kept and moved up distinguishes it from delete_site or move_folder by describing exactly what is and isn't removed.

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?

Provides conditions (permission to manage folder) and an exclusion (Marketing folder is never deleted), but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like move_folder or set_folder_slug. So the guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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