clio_delete_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the destructive nature and the two-call confirmation mechanism, which is valuable beyond the schema. However, it doesn't detail what the preview contains or any error conditions.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that front-load the action and key workflow. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description captures the essential two-step workflow but omits details about the second call's full requirements (e.g., whether id is still needed) and the return value of execution. The preview's contents and error handling are also unspecified, leaving some gaps for a multi-step destructive operation.

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 0%, yet the description only indirectly mentions confirm_token ('call again with the token') and never explains the id parameter. It fails to clarify what id refers to or that it is required, leaving parameter semantics mostly to inference.

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' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like clio_delete_document and clio_delete_activity. It leaves no ambiguity about the operation.

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 explicitly outlines the two-step usage: first call returns a preview and confirm_token, then call again with the token to execute. It implies this is the correct way to delete a folder, but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives; still, the context is clear.

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