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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation is known. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it refuses on non-empty folders and guarantees it never deletes an app, giving the agent a precise safety boundary. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core operation, and the following sentences add necessary constraints and usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool with no output schema and destructive/idempotent annotations, the description is complete: it defines the operation, the precondition, the refusal condition, and the safe next step. An agent has enough context to call it correctly without needing additional details.

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 covers folder_id fully with a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no direct parameter-level detail, but its constraints about empty folders and not deleting apps indirectly help an agent choose the correct folder.

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 clearly identifies the operation as deleting a folder, with the critical precondition that it must be empty. It also distinguishes itself from app-related tools by stating that it never deletes an app, which prevents confusion with sibling tools like trash_app.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: the folder must be empty, and it refuses if apps or subfolders remain. It also recommends moving contents out first. It does not name an alternative sibling tool such as mv, but the workflow implication is clear.

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