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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It usefully reveals that deleting a folder does not delete its codes (they become un-filed), which is a critical behavioral detail. However, it does not mention whether the operation is reversible, if it requires specific permissions (beyond the API key), or what the response looks like. Given the lack of annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. There is no unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) and the presence of 16 sibling tools, the description is mostly complete but could be improved. It explains the key behavioral nuance (codes are un-filed) and the API key requirement, but it does not state what the tool returns or how to confirm success. For a delete operation, this is a minor gap.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter (id) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no description for the parameter. The description does not add any meaning to the 'id' parameter beyond what is obvious from the schema. Since there is only one parameter, the lack of additional detail is a missed opportunity, but the schema itself is minimal, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 folder') and specifies the resource. It also clarifies a key behavioral nuance: codes are un-filed, not deleted. This distinguishes it from other deletion tools like delete_dynamic_qr or delete_theme.

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 mentions an API key requirement ('Requires an OpenQR API key'), which offers some guidance, but it lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use delete_folder vs. delete_dynamic_qr). No exclusions or prerequisites are given beyond the API key.

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