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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful detail about exactly what is destroyed versus preserved: projects and brand kit remain unfiled, while folder media is removed except files added by its projects. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not state whether the deletion is reversible.

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 short and front-loaded with the action, then immediately states the key consequences. The phrasing is slightly terse but every sentence carries useful information.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the important consequences and the user-confirmation requirement. Its main gap is the lack of any parameter guidance for folderId.

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 has one required parameter, folderId, with 0% description coverage. The description never mentions folderId, how to obtain it, or what format it takes, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a folder.' It goes beyond the title by explaining the cascade outcome for contained projects, brand kit, and folder media, which helps distinguish it from update_folder or delete_bin.

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 gives one important usage rule: 'Ask the user first,' which is appropriate for a destructive action. However, it does not explain when to choose this over related tools such as delete_bin or update_folder, so the guidance is present but incomplete.

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