delete_project_folder

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to do so: there is no mention of destructive nature, irreversibility, authorization needs, effect on children (files/folders), or confirmation requirements. The name implies deletion, but the description adds nothing.

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 a single short sentence, achieving maximum conciseness. However, it lacks structure or hierarchy. While efficient, it could be expanded slightly to include context without losing conciseness.

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 three parameters (including a confusing operation_type), no output schema, and the destructive nature of deletion, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or valid parameter combinations, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, but these descriptions are cryptic and potentially misleading (e.g., operation_type description is unrelated to deletion). The tool description does not clarify any parameters or their semantics, failing to compensate for schema inadequacies.

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 '删除项目文件夹' translates to 'delete project folder', directly stating the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_project_folder and edit_project_folder. However, it adds no nuance beyond the name, missing a slight opportunity for further clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_file, delete_project, or edit_project_folder. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or context, leaving the agent without decision support.

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