delete_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Permanently' hints at irreversibility, which is useful, but the description doesn't disclose cascading deletions (what happens to contained lists, tasks, folders), permission requirements, or error conditions. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 efficient sentence, 'Delete a folder permanently'—no wasted words or redundant content. It's appropriately brief for a simple destructive operation. It doesn't restate parameter names or duplicate schema 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?

The tool is a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It fails to disclose what happens to nested resources (child folders, lists, tasks) when a folder is deleted, whether there are confirmation/soft-delete safeguards, or permission requirements. For a destructive operation, this is incomplete and leaves an agent guessing about cascading effects.

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 has 100% coverage with a single documented parameter (folder_id: 'The folder ID'), so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't clarify the ID format, how to obtain it, or any constraints. With only one well-documented parameter, the schema does the heavy lifting adequately.

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 'Delete a folder permanently' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (folder), and communicates the action is permanent. The sibling tools include get_folder, create_folder, update_folder, delete_list, and delete_space, but the folder-specific scope is clear enough to distinguish it from delete_space and delete_list. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from potential alternatives or clarify whether it only deletes empty folders.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. It doesn't address whether the folder must be empty, whether its lists/tasks are also deleted, or any cascading behavior. There's no mention of when-not-to-use or alternative deletion methods.

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