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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the cascade behavior: descendant folders and contained assets are also removed by a backend workflow. It does not say whether the deletion is permanent or recoverable, which would have been the final piece.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the destructive cascade fact is front-loaded right after the core action. Every sentence earns its place.

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, cascading mutation this covers the most important unknown (what else gets deleted), and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. However, it omits permanence/recoverability and any permission requirements, which matter given the presence of `recover` and `list_recycle_bin` siblings.

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% and both parameters (folder_id, workspace_id) are documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat them. It adds no extra semantics such as id format or scope restrictions, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 extends it with the cascade scope. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutations like delete_asset or delete_playlist by resource name, but it never names an alternative or sibling explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. required permissions), and no mention of the sibling `recover` / `list_recycle_bin` tools that imply deletion may be reversible. The agent must infer the appropriate context entirely.

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