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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds important context beyond those annotations: the folder is removed but its contents are relocated, where they go, and that movedTo/count are returned. It does not cover permissions or irreversibility, but it substantially clarifies the destructive behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior: deletion without content loss. The relocation rule and return values are stated efficiently, with no wasted sentences.

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 one-parameter destructive folder operation with no output schema, the description covers the key side effect and return values well. It leaves gaps around parameter semantics and prerequisites, but the essential behavior an agent needs is present.

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% and there is one parameter, but the description never explains what the id refers to or what format it expects. It implies a folder is targeted but does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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: deletes a document folder. Crucially, it distinguishes the operation from a content-deleting delete by explaining that documents and subfolders are moved to the parent or project root, so an agent understands the exact semantics 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?

The description makes the deletion scenario clear but does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives like save_doc_folder or list_doc_folders. For a destructive action, more guidance about prerequisites or confirmation would help, though the use case is fairly obvious.

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