DocsMint

delete_folder

Destructive

Delete a folder while keeping its documents: child folders and documents are detached per API rules. Requires write access.

Instructions

Delete a folder while preserving its documents; child folders and documents are detached under the API rules. Requires write access.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	UUID returned by the corresponding list or read operation.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`deleted`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.2Sep 28, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

changedInput schema / properties / id / description

Previous value: -"UUID of the folder to delete; obtain it from list_folders. This detaches, but does not delete, the documents inside it."New value: +"UUID returned by the corresponding list or read operation."

First observedSep 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuine value beyond them: it discloses that documents survive, that child folders/documents are detached, and that write access is required. This is the kind of mutation-behavior detail annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight clauses with zero waste; the core action and its key consequence are front-loaded before the permission requirement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-param destructive tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is essentially complete: it covers the mutation effect, side effects, and permission need. Only explicit alternative-routing is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single 'id' parameter (UUID from a list/read operation) is already fully documented. The description adds no syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Delete a folder') and clarifies the scope semantically ('while preserving its documents'), which meaningfully differentiates it from delete_document and delete_category. It stops just short of naming the sibling alternatives, but the operation is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the behavioral note that documents are preserved and children detached, which suggests when this tool is preferred over a hard delete. However, it never states when to use this versus delete_document or permanently_delete_document, nor any exclusions.

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