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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds what those hints cannot: the call is refused rather than partially applied when the folder is non-empty, the refusal reports item counts, and the effect propagates to all connected devices. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before invoking a destructive 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the default safety behavior, then the override, then the side effect. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. For a destructive, vault-scoped tool the description covers the refusal semantics, the destructive opt-in, and cross-device propagation, which is everything needed to call it safely.

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 schema already documents folder, vault_id and recursive; the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by tying recursive:true to 'everything under it' and to the default refusal path, clarifying the parameter's consequence rather than just its type.

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 folder') and immediately qualifies the scope with the empty-only default and the recursive override. It is clearly distinguishable from delete_note or rename_folder by resource, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 concrete when-to-use conditions: the default refuses non-empty folders, and recursive: true is the documented path for deleting contents. It does not state when an agent should prefer an alternative tool (e.g. deleting contents via delete_note first), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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