delete_folder

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is destructive (cascade delete), that notes are soft-deleted (recoverable), the recovery context (restore_note, retention window), and that the action is irreversible in the sense of losing folder structure unless moved first. It also notes the side effect of moving content. This is strong for a destructive tool.

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, front-loaded with the primary effect (cascade delete), then explains consequences and provides an alternative. No redundancy, every sentence adds value. It is appropriately structured for a destructive operation.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: cascade deletion, soft-delete behavior, recovery, and an alternative. It could also mention if there are any permission requirements or if the operation fails for non-existent folders, but these are likely self-explanatory. Overall, it is complete enough for the agent to call correctly.

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 provides the parameter 'id' with format UUID and pattern, but no description. The tool's description doesn't directly describe the parameter, but it implicitly indicates that 'id' identifies the folder to delete. Since the schema coverage is 0% and there is only one parameter, the description's context is enough to infer. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'the id is the folder identifier', but that is obvious from context. Given the single param, score 4 is fair.

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 tool deletes a folder and its full subtree, and distinguishes cascading behavior from a single item deletion. It names the sibling delete_note and contrasts with delete_note, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly explains the cascade behavior and its implications for notes in subfolders, and gives an alternative approach (move items out) to preserve organization. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g., if you want to keep any content), but the alternative is clear.

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