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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description earns credit for disclosing what annotations cannot: subfolders are cascade-deleted, videos are preserved but unfoldered (folder_id null), and the response shape is { success: true }. It stops short of stating whether the deletion is recoverable or what permissions/role are required, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns for a destructive write.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler: the operation first, the dangerous side effect second, the non-obvious preservation behavior third, and the return value last. Front-loaded and every sentence carries distinct 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return value, the cascade side effect, and the nulling behavior for videos — covering the questions an agent must answer before firing a destructive call. Combined with the destructive annotation and fully documented two-parameter schema, nothing essential 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% — folder_id documents its source (list_folders) and idempotency_key documents its 10-minute retry semantics in full. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Deletes a folder") and immediately scopes the blast radius with cascade semantics, which is exactly what separates it from update_folder or move_video_to_folder in the sibling list. An agent can identify the operation and its scope without opening the 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?

Usage is only implied by the verb — delete a folder when you want it gone. There is no guidance on when not to use it (e.g., to remove a video from a folder, use move_video_to_folder), no confirmation/permission prerequisite, and no mention that deletion may be irreversible. The schema's pointer to list_folders for the ID is the only navigational aid.

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