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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: permanence, what happens to children/documents when flags default to false (they orphan to parent/root), and the compounding effect of setting both flags. It omits any note on permissions or failure modes, so not a 5.

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, front-loaded with the action and its permanence, followed by flag mechanics and finally the safety warning. No filler and the riskiest information is not buried.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers permanence, defaults, child/document handling, and a user-confirmation caution — enough detail to call it safely. Minor gaps remain around required privileges and post-delete state, but nothing that would cause a wrong invocation.

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% and the schema descriptions already state the defaults and orphan behavior for both flags. The description largely restates that semantics, though it helpfully conveys the combined effect of both flags being true. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 ('delete') and resource ('folder') with the scope qualifier 'permanently', which cleanly separates it from folder-update, folder-get, and folder-list in the sibling set. An agent can identify this as the destructive folder operation 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?

Provides clear operative context: which flags do what and the strong recommendation to 'confirm with the user first' before wiping a populated tree. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g., moving folders vs deleting), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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