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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description still adds genuine value by disclosing the cascade behavior (children get reparented, not destroyed) and that the delete takes effect immediately. It leaves out reversibility/undo and any permission requirements.

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, action front-loaded, with the consequence of the call before the prerequisite. The fragment "Deleted when this runs" is terse to the point of ambiguity but wastes no words.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what happens to child objects, immediacy, the required justification, and a prerequisite skill. Remaining gaps (undo, permissions, return value) are minor given the annotation coverage.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, including reason and folderId semantics. The description's "explain it in reason" restates the schema rather than adding format or constraint detail, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a dashboard folder") and immediately delimits scope: dashboards and subfolders move to the parent, "no dashboard is deleted." That contrast distinguishes it from delete_dashboard and delete_query without the agent needing to open a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow (load the manage-dashboards skill first) which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, contrast this with update_dashboard_folder or explain when reparenting-delete is preferable to moving contents manually.

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