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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the specifics an agent needs: folders are permanently deleted, contained forms go to Trash and are restorable for 30 days, and it documents the exact return payload including a deprecated alias. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond 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?

Front-loaded with the action and its most important consequence (irreversible folder deletion), followed by the return shape. Every clause earns its place; no 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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers effects, restorability, and return values well. The only gap is the undocumented folderId format, which is minor but leaves the single parameter under-specified.

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% for the single required folderId parameter, so the description must carry the burden but provides no format, ID type, or example. It implies 'a folder' is identified but adds no semantics beyond the parameter name.

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 its subfolders), and its effect on contained forms. An agent can distinguish it from form_delete and workspaceFolder_update without reading the schema.

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 consequences (forms trashed, folders irreversible) are useful context, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over form_delete or other deletion tools, nor does it state prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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