ticktick_delete_folder

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that projects in the folder will be moved to root level rather than deleted. Annotations already indicate this is destructive and idempotent, but the description provides important operational details about the side effect. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 perfectly concise: two sentences that each provide essential information. First sentence states the core action, second sentence explains the key behavioral consequence. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive operation with good annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the main behavioral consequence (projects moved to root), which is the most important information beyond what annotations convey. The main gap is lack of parameter guidance.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description doesn't mention the 'folder_id' parameter at all. While the schema provides basic parameter documentation, the description adds no parameter-specific context. With only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description's complete lack of parameter information reduces this to 3.

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 project folder') and specifies what happens to contained projects ('Projects in the folder will be moved to the root level'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_project' by focusing on folders rather than projects, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_folder' or 'create_folder'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_project' or 'update_folder'. It mentions the consequence of moving projects to root, but doesn't specify prerequisites, permissions needed, or when this operation is appropriate versus deleting projects individually.

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