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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral context beyond them: the operation cascades to subfolders and all endpoints, and it refuses folders containing resource CRUD routes. It discloses exactly what gets destroyed and what prerequisite must be handled first.

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, front-loaded with the core action and cascade effect, followed by the critical refusal condition and alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Given the cascading delete behavior, the refusal constraint, and full annotation coverage, the description is complete for correct invocation. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema with source hints (from list_folders, from list_workspaces). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a folder') and immediately defines the cascade scope ('with its subfolders and every endpoint in them'). This distinguishes it from delete_endpoint and delete_resource without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

Explicitly states a precondition and refusal condition ('Refuses folders that hold a resource's CRUD routes') and names the correct alternative ('delete those resources with delete_resource first'). This gives an agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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