Delete assets or folders

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but nothing in structured data communicates the two-phase safety protocol. The description explains that the first call only returns needs_confirmation with a plan and confirm_token, and that nothing is deleted until the call is repeated with that token — the single most important behavioral fact for an agent invoking this.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The destructive scope comes first and the confirmation safeguard second, which is the correct reading order for a delete tool.

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?

Six parameters with full schema coverage, an output schema for return shape, and annotations for the safety profile. The description fills the one remaining gap — the confirmation workflow — so an agent knows exactly what happens on first and second call.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: recursive is framed as 'a folder and everything in it', and confirm_token is tied to the confirmation round-trip ('runs exactly that plan'). dry_run and the filter params are left to the schema, which documents them 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?

States a specific verb (delete) and enumerates the three target kinds it covers: a single asset, wildcard matches, or a folder tree with recursive. No sibling tool does deletion, so the resource+verb pairing is unambiguous against cloudinary_move, cloudinary_rename_folder, and the read tools.

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 recursive case is called out inline as the condition for folder-tree deletion, which gives real usage context. It does not name a sibling or state when NOT to use it (e.g., prefer cloudinary_move to relocate), but for a destructive delete the use case is self-evident.

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