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

With no annotations, the description does the full job: it discloses what is destroyed (items and share link), the side effect that the link stops working, what is preserved, credit cost ('Free'), the return payload, the underlying DELETE endpoint, and a specific 404 error code. Only irreversibility wording and auth requirements are left implicit.

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 destructive scope in the first clause, then retention, return shape, cost, and error in a tight telegraphic sequence. 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?

An output schema exists, so the redundant return-value statement is unnecessary but harmless; errors and cost are covered. The remaining gap is authentication/permission expectations for a destructive operation with zero annotations.

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%: folder_id is already documented in the schema ('from list_folders or create_folder'), and api_key is undocumented in both places. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it neither compensates for the gap nor repeats the schema — baseline 3.

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 plus the exact blast radius: the folder, its items, and its share link (which stops working), while explicitly noting hooks/finds and their keeps survive. That is enough to separate it from remove_from_folder or delete_preset without opening any 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 retention clause ('hooks and finds... stay') implicitly tells an agent this is not the tool for deleting content, but no sibling is ever named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement despite many neighboring deletion and folder tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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