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 known. The description adds valuable detail beyond annotations: the deletion cascades to subfolders and contained sheets/pages, user confirmation is mandatory, and `folder.restore` can bring everything back. It does not cover permission requirements or any restore-window limitation.

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 scope and followed by the confirmation requirement and restore path. Every sentence adds useful information with no wasted wording.

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 folder mutation with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: cascade deletion, mandatory confirmation, and recovery via `folder.restore`. The remaining gap is parameter semantics, especially the undocumented `folderId`, but the tool-level behavior is largely complete.

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 only 50%: `spaceId` is described, but `folderId` has no schema description. The tool description does not mention either parameter or explain how `folderId` identifies the target, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource (delete a folder) and clarifies the cascade scope: subfolders plus the sheets and pages inside them. It also names `folder.restore` as the undo path, which helps distinguish it from sibling deletion tools like `page.delete` or `sheet.delete`.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition: the tool always asks the user first, so the agent should say what is inside before calling it. It also names `folder.restore` as the recovery alternative. It does not explicitly route to `page.delete` or `sheet.delete` for non-folder deletions, but the cascade scope makes that distinction mostly clear.

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