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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is destructive. The description adds the key behavioral nuance that the media files themselves are not deleted—they are simply un-foldered. This is valuable context beyond the annotation and prevents the agent from overestimating the blast radius. It doesn't mention reversibility or permissions, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the most important caveat. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition of the title.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with a complete schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior. The only minor gap is not mentioning whether the operation is reversible or what happens to the folder's children beyond media (e.g., subfolders), but the core decision-making information 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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the schema is complete. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the action (delete a media folder) and the resource (media folder), and immediately clarifies a critical nuance: the media inside are not deleted, just un-foldered. This distinguishes it from a destructive delete and from sibling tools like delete_media_file or archive_media_folder.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want to remove a folder but retain its media. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like archive_media_folder or move_media_to_folder, but the 'not deleted, just un-foldered' clarification gives enough context for an agent to choose it over a true delete. A clear exclusion of when not to use it would push this to 5.

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