Delete Project Folder

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveness and idempotency, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: moving to the recycle bin, permanent removal, irreversibility, repeat call returning 404, and specific HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404) with causes. There is a slight ambiguity between 'recycle bin' and 'permanently removes,' but it does not contradict the 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?

The description is dense and informative but includes redundancy: two sentences say essentially the same thing about confirming and resolving the id. It also repeats the required parameters already present in the schema. Despite this, it remains front-loaded with the core action and provides useful details.

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 low-complexity delete tool with full schema coverage and thorough annotations, the description covers prerequisites, deletion behavior, error handling, and the API endpoint. It does not describe the success response, and the recycle-bin vs permanent-removal nuance is slightly ambiguous, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema already provides complete descriptions for both id and project_id, so the extra semantic value is limited. The description adds that id must identify an existing parent record and that both parameters are required, which is helpful but not a substantial supplement to the schema's coverage.

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 the specified folder by moving it to the recycle bin.' It names the resource (project folder) and provides the exact endpoint, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes from sibling delete tools by its folder-specific and project-scoped language.

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 gives explicit guidance to confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool and to resolve id via the matching list tool first. This is a clear usage prerequisite, though it does not name the exact sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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