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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds the crucial extra context annotations cannot express: only the grouping is destroyed, not the underlying files, storage objects, or saved-design references. It omits reversibility and permission/auth requirements, keeping it below 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary effect first and the scope caveat second; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description's main job is clarifying blast radius, which it does well. The remaining gap is the complete absence of parameter meaning for a destructive, non-idempotent 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% — folderId and projectId have type/format constraints but no semantic documentation — and the description says nothing about either parameter. It neither explains what folderId identifies nor how projectId scopes the operation, so it fails to compensate for 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?

Specific verb (deletes) plus specific resource (screenshot folder) and an explicit statement of the effect on contained files (ungroups them). The 'does not delete asset files' clause separates it from delete_assets, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is implied — you call this to remove a folder while keeping the assets — and the negative clause implicitly routes file deletion to delete_assets. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. folder must be empty or exist), and no named alternative.

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