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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses the recursive deletion, the removal of subfolders and creatives, and the nuanced R2 cleanup logic (only deleting blobs not referenced elsewhere). It also scopes the operation to the authenticated tenant. This is rich, transparent behavior description beyond any 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?

The description is two sentences plus an example line, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the action and its effects, the second provides the required parameter and format, and the example reinforces usage. There is no redundancy.

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?

The tool is a destructive recursive delete with a single parameter and no output schema. The description fully covers what happens (recursive deletion, orphan cleanup), the required input, and an example. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so by specifying the required parameter folder_id, its type (str), and format (UUID), and providing a concrete example call. This is sufficient for an agent to understand how to provide the parameter, though it does not elaborate on the semantics beyond the obvious (it is the folder to delete).

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 clearly states the action (delete a creative folder recursively) and the scope (for the authenticated tenant). It details what is removed: subfolders, creatives, and orphaned R2 objects with a specific condition. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like creatives_delete, which presumably targets a single creative.

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 context for when to use the tool: to delete a folder and all its contents recursively. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when deleting a single creative (creatives_delete). It lacks explicit exclusionary guidance but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer the right choice.

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