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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: pages survive and move to "not in any folder" keeping their links and permissions, the folder link and folder page break immediately, the folder disappears from the home page, and there is a 30-day restore window with a caveat about pages moved elsewhere in the meantime.

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?

Front-loaded with the most important fact (pages are never deleted), then consequences, then recovery, then the confirm requirement. It is a single dense paragraph rather than a list, which slightly hurts scannability, but every sentence carries operational 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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers consequences, immediate effects, recovery path, confirmation protocol, and the alternative tool for page deletion. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely 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 coverage is 50%: confirm has a description (in Chinese) about passing the folder name verbatim, while folder_id is undocumented. The description compensates by explaining that confirm must repeat the folder name exactly and that list_folders should be used to obtain it, which effectively documents how to source folder_id too.

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 ("Delete a folder") and immediately scopes it: "the folder only, never its pages." That scope statement distinguishes it from delete_proposal, which the description explicitly names as the tool for deleting pages.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions and alternatives: check with list_folders first, confirm with the user, use restore_folder to undo, and delete_proposal one-by-one if pages should also go. Both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-something-else cases are covered.

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