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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing irreversibility ('Permanently delete'), cascade defaults, orphan-to-parent/root behavior, and the dangerous combination of both flags. The destructiveHint=true annotation is consistent and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail about what gets destroyed.

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 compact and well-structured: it states the core action first, then explains flags and defaults, and ends with a high-visibility warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the bold warning is appropriately emphasized without bloat.

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 tool with no output schema, this description fully covers what an agent needs to know: audacity of the operation, default behavior for sub-folders and documents, how to opt into recursive deletion, and a safety warning. FolderId is already documented in the schema, so no critical context 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how the two boolean flags interact as a pair, including the combined consequence of both being true. It also reinforces default behavior and the warning about data loss, which the schema descriptions only hint at individually.

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 action and resource: 'Permanently delete a folder.' It clearly differentiates from sibling folder tools (folder-create, folder-get, folder-list, folder-update) by focusing on deletion and cascade behavior. The two flags and their roles are explicit.

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?

The description clearly conveys when this tool applies: when a folder needs permanent deletion. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives, but it does give important usage context by explaining default orphan behavior and cautioning that setting both flags can wipe a lot of data. This is clear context though not a formal when/when-not statement.

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