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

The annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds critical context beyond them: there is no trash or archive view, the Jams leave team lists and search, nobody can restore them, and the call returns archivedJamCount. It also warns not to tell users the Jams can be restored, which is exactly the kind of behavioral guidance an agent needs for an irreversible operation.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the destructive scope, then the irreversibility, then the return value, then the operational warnings. Every sentence carries necessary information for a destructive tool, and there is no redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 destructive folder-deletion tool with no output schema, the description covers the cascade effect, irreversibility, required confirmation, prerequisite listing step, identifier constraints, and return value. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema by emphasizing that folderId must come from listFolders and must never be a folder name because a name could match the wrong folder. It does not explain the intent or llm_model parameters, but those are already documented in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Delete a folder") and immediately clarifies the scope: every Jam inside it is deleted too. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like deleteJam and listFolders by explaining the folder-level cascade and the return value.

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 says to confirm with the user before calling, to use listFolders first so the user can see the folder contents, and to pass a folder ID or short ID rather than a name. These are concrete when-to-use and how-to-use instructions with a named alternative for inspection.

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