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

Despite annotations already flagging destructiveHint=true, the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: deletion is soft with a 30-day retention window, sub-notes and a folder's notes/files cascade into Recently Deleted, and deleting an app specifically preserves the note and keeps the app in history. These cascade rules and edge cases are exactly the context annotations cannot express.

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?

A single dense sentence with nested parentheses carries a lot of information but repeats "to Recently Deleted" three times and "for 30 days" twice, which could be consolidated. The most important behavioral fact (soft delete + retention window) is embedded mid-sentence rather than front-loaded, making it harder to scan.

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?

With one fully documented parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering destructiveness, the description supplies enough: entity types, cascade behavior, and retention. It omits failure modes (deleting a nonexistent path, permission requirements) but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 the schema's `path` description already enumerates the same entity forms. The parent description reinforces that `path` is polymorphic but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a clear verb ("Deletes") and then enumerates every resource type it accepts: note, folder, file-in-folder, app file, and app. The scope is unambiguous and the entity list maps directly onto the single `path` parameter. It stops short of naming a sibling (e.g. `restore` as the counterpart), so an agent gets no explicit differentiation against the other 11 tools.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The only usage-relevant signal is the implicit one buried in the text — that deletion is soft ("to Recently Deleted... for 30 days"), which hints at recoverability but is never framed as decision guidance. An agent must infer everything about choosing this over `move` or `restore`.

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