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

Adds substantive behavior beyond the annotations: contained media survives and lands in Unfiled, so the destructiveHint applies to the folder/organization rather than the assets. It also surfaces a confirmation requirement. It does not address whether the folder removal is recoverable or what happens to nested subfolders.

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 sentences, no filler. The consequence (media retained, returns to Unfiled) is front-loaded before the safety instruction, which is the right ordering for a destructive operation.

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?

Strong on the outcome for media and on confirmation, but the ambiguity of 'its organization' — whether subfolders are also destroyed — and the absence of any guidance on sourcing folderId leave real gaps for a destructive one-param tool with no output schema.

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?

The single parameter folderId has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it — not how to obtain a valid ID (list_folders) nor any format expectations. The description's value is entirely about effects, leaving the required input unexplained in both places.

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 ('Removes the folder and its organization') and immediately contrasts the effect with destructive deletion by noting contained media is retained. It does not name siblings like delete_media_permanently or trash_media explicitly, but the retention semantics make the distinction inferable.

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 gives one concrete procedural rule: obtain confirmation before removing. It does not say when to prefer this over rename_folder, when to move media first via move_media, or what preconditions (folder must be empty? owned?) apply.

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