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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing the cascading deletion of the folder's contents and the hard constraint that the zone root is protected — the two facts an agent most needs before firing a destructive call.

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 destructive nature and cascading effect, then the path format, then the boundary condition. No filler and nothing buried.

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 3-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what gets destroyed, the path format, and the protected root. It stops short of explaining account-parameter precedence and default-account fallback, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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 carry the load: it does explain that folder_path is the full path inside the zone and gives a concrete example ('images/2026'). But it only names storages_account_id / storages_account_uuid without saying whether they are alternatives, whether either is required, or which account is used when both are null (both default to null).

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 + resource (delete a storage folder) with the crucial scope qualifier that deletion is recursive ('together with everything inside it'). This clearly distinguishes it by name from the sibling delete_storage_file, though it never names that sibling explicitly to make the distinction airtight.

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 tool name and the 'zone root cannot be deleted' exclusion, which is a useful boundary. However, it never states when to prefer this over delete_storage_file, nor what happens if the path does not exist, so the agent must infer the selection rule.

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