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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the key behavioral context that deletion is permanent ('kalıcı olarak') and that explicit user consent is required. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the irreversibility and the consent requirement, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Bir klasörü kalıcı olarak siler') and adds the critical consent condition. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or 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?

For a single-parameter delete tool with annotations covering destructive/read-only/idempotent hints, the description is largely complete. It states permanence and consent, which are the key behavioral facts. It doesn't mention return values, but there is no output schema, and for a delete operation the absence of a return description is a minor gap. The sibling list provides context that this is one of several delete tools, but the description doesn't need to enumerate all alternatives.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter semantics. However, the description does not explain the 'id' parameter beyond what the schema provides (type string, format uuid). The schema already specifies the format and pattern, so the description adds no additional meaning about what the id refers to (e.g., folder ID). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema is self-explanatory for a single UUID parameter, but the description could have clarified that id is the folder identifier.

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: 'Bir klasörü kalıcı olarak siler' (permanently deletes a folder). It clearly identifies the action and target, and the destructive nature is explicit. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling delete tools (delete_idea, delete_post, delete_media_asset), but the resource is named, so an agent can infer the target.

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 implies usage context by stating the user must have explicitly requested this destructive operation, which serves as a cautionary guideline. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, such as noting that update_folder might be preferred for non-destructive changes or that delete_idea/delete_post are for other resource types. The condition 'Kullanıcı bu yıkıcı işlemi açıkça istemiş olmalı' is a clear prerequisite but not a full usage guide.

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