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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the deletion is recursive across subfolders, sweeps up trashed items, is irreversible, and returns the destroyed IDs. None of that is recoverable from the annotations or schema.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the destructive cascade is front-loaded. The final sentence on return shape is long but earns its place because no output schema exists to convey it.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, reversibility, and return payload well. It omits any permission or authorization prerequisite, which is the only meaningful gap for an irreversible operation.

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% and the single required folderId has no schema documentation. The description implies the subject is the folder being deleted but never states that folderId identifies it, its format, or whether a path is accepted. Adequate but thin given the coverage gap.

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 (delete) and resource (folder) and goes further by defining the exact cascade scope: nested subfolders, all forms within, including trashed. This distinguishes it from sibling form_delete and workspaceFolder_update, which cannot remove folder trees.

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?

Usage is implied by the irreversible cascade semantics, which tells an agent this is the heavy-weight deletion path. However, it never names an alternative (e.g. form_delete for single forms, workspaceFolder_update for renaming) or states prerequisites, so routing is left to inference.

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