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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety bar is lower, yet the description adds a crucial nuance: this is a SOFT delete that unfiles media rather than destroying it. It also discloses tenant-ownership scoping, which hints at authorization boundaries. It stops short of stating whether subfolders or empty-folder states are affected.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The most consequential fact — that it is a soft delete preserving media — is front-loaded in the first clause.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile. The main residual gap is the required idempotencyKey, whose purpose an agent must infer from the schema pattern alone.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only implicitly covers 'confirm' via 'requires explicit confirmation'; 'idempotencyKey' is never mentioned despite being required, and 'folderId' semantics (tenant scope, prefix format) come only from the schema pattern.

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 ('soft-deletes'), a specific resource ('one tenant-owned folder'), and the side effect ('unfiles its media'). This is far more precise than the title and clearly distinguishes it from rename_folder/list_folders, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

'Requires explicit confirmation' tells the agent a precondition for invocation, and 'preserves the media items' implies when this is preferable to a hard delete. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus move_transcript_to_folder or other folder operations.

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