delete_folder

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains that deletion affects nested folders and messages, and warns that it's irreversible. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description reinforces this without contradiction, providing extra behavioral insight like cascading effects.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by critical details (scope and warning) in a logical flow. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff—making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, parameter semantics, and behavioral risks. However, it lacks details on error cases or response format, which could be useful given the tool's high-stakes nature.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter ('id'), the description compensates by specifying 'by its ID', clarifying that the parameter is a folder identifier. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail ID format or constraints, keeping it slightly above baseline.

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 specific action ('Delete a folder by its ID') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'move_folder' or 'update_folder_name' by emphasizing the permanent removal. It also specifies the scope of deletion (nested folders and messages), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 implies usage by specifying 'by its ID' and warning about destructiveness, which helps differentiate from non-destructive siblings like 'get_folder'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_folder' for relocation or provide prerequisites, leaving some guidance gaps.

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