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

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint, the description adds valuable behavior: empty-only refusal with counts, recursive deletion semantics, and syncing across devices. This tells the agent about safety guardrails and side effects, which is exactly the kind of context annotations alone do not provide.

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, front-loaded with the core actionlorraine, then the critical default behavior, the override, and the side effect. Every sentence earns its place; there is no repetition of schema fields or annotation data.

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, nested-content operation, the description covers the essential decision points: default refusal, how to opt into recursive deletion, and the syncing side effect. The vault_id nuance is covered in the schema, and the output schema handles return values, so nothing needed for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the empty-only guardrail tied to recursive, and it makes the folder path semantic concrete with the example. This pushes it above baseline.

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 distinguishes destructive scope: empty-only by default vs recursive deletion. This separates it from siblings like delete_note, rename_folder, and create_folder without ambiguity.

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 clear operational guidance: the default empty-only behavior, when to pass recursive: true, and that non-empty folders are refused with counts. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives ('use delete_note for a single note'), but the deletion scope is sufficiently clear to guide tool selection.

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