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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by spelling out exactly what is destroyed (the folder and its subfolders) and what is preserved (files move to the library root rather than being deleted). This is precisely the cascading-effect detail an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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 verb and scope, followed by the side effects and the API endpoint mapping. No filler, and each sentence adds distinct information.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: permanence, cascading deletion, and file relocation. It stops short of covering permission requirements or error behavior (e.g., what happens if the UUID is invalid), which are minor gaps given the annotation-based safety profile.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'folder' property is documented as a UUID in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 and resource ('Permanently delete a folder') with the destructive intent made explicit by the word 'Permanently'. The resource (folder) cleanly separates it from sibling deleters like delete_media, delete_stream, and delete_tag without needing to inspect any 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 description never says when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., move_files_to_folder to relocate contents rather than destroy structure) nor states any precondition for deletion. Usage is only inferable from the tool name, so no guidance is provided.

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