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

Beyond destructiveHint=true, it discloses the two-phase preview/confirm protocol, that non-cascaded contents stay in the library while cascade:true sends them to the trash and is recoverable, that folders containing subfolders are refused, and that the operation is free.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive outcome, then the dry-run rule, then the cascade/trash semantics and the refusal case. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers everything an agent needs to call this destructive tool correctly: confirmation flow, item disposition, refusal condition, and cost. Nothing material is missing for a 3-parameter delete.

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 67% and folderId has no description at all, but the description compensates by explaining the confirm two-step and the library-vs-trash consequence of cascade, which goes beyond the terse schema text. The undocumented folderId is still left as an unstated id reference.

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?

"Delete one of your folders for good" names a specific verb and resource and pins the scope to the caller's own folders, which separates it from sibling deletes (delete_my_asset, delete_my_videos) and from non-destructive tools like rename_folder/list_my_folders.

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 tells the agent exactly how to invoke it safely: the first call without confirm:true is a dry run, and confirm is only set after a human agrees, which matches the schema note. It does not name sibling alternatives such as list_my_folders for discovering folderId, so it stops short of a full 5.

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