delete_folder

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses that the deletion cascades to nested folders and messages, cannot be undone, and is easy to underestimate. It also states the return value is a deletion confirmation. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Structured with labeled sections (USE WHEN, USE INSTEAD, FIRST, EXAMPLE, RETURNS) that front-load critical constraints before the example. Every sentence contributes actionable information with no filler.

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 cascade tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers invocation trigger, alternatives, id provenance, an example, and the return type. The agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly and safely.

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, the description fully compensates: it states the id comes from get_root_folders (field results[].id), instructs to call that first if needed, and provides an example {"id":"folder-abc"}. This is more meaning than the bare 'id: string' schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a folder, including every nested folder and all their messages.' The scope of deletion is explicit, distinguishing it from siblings like move_folder and get_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?

Provides explicit USE WHEN ('Only when the whole subtree should be destroyed') and USE INSTEAD sections naming move_folder and move_message_to_folder as alternatives. Also instructs to check total_nested_messages_count via get_folder before calling, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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