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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses permanence, recursive subfolder deletion, and the fact that assignments survive but lose their folder. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 tight sentences front-load the critical permanence warning and pack the cascade behavior and reversible alternative into minimal words. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 tool with annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers the key effects, irreversibility, and the safer alternative. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'folder' parameter, including accepted forms (id, name, or full path), and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. With 100% schema coverage, 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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('assignment folder'), and clarifies that deletion is permanent and cascades to subfolders while preserving assignments. This clearly distinguishes it from update_folder/archive_folder and delete_folders in the sibling list.

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?

It explicitly directs the agent to prefer update_folder with archive when reversibility is desired, establishing the key when/when-not boundary. The permanent/cascade semantics imply use this tool only when irreversible deletion is the intended outcome.

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