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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the critical non-obvious behavior: contained flows are preserved and re-parented to unfiled, not cascaded. It also discloses the return payload {deleted: true}, which is essential since no output schema exists.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste. Purpose first, then the surprising behavior, then the return shape. Front-loaded and complete.

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?

A single-param destructive tool with no output schema needs exactly this: what is destroyed (the folder), what survives (flows, re-parented), and what comes back ({deleted: true}). Nothing an agent needs to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the folder_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't need to repeat it, and correctly doesn't. A 4 rather than a 3 because the description implies the identifier targets a specific folder whose contents survive, connecting the parameter to the safety semantics.

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?

Specific verb 'Delete' plus resource 'folder', immediately distinguishing it from create_folder, list_folders, and rename_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 clarifies the consequence (flows moved back to unfiled, not deleted), which implicitly tells an agent when this is safe to use. But it doesn't name alternatives like rename_folder or list_folders, nor does it state prerequisites.

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