Deletes the specified proxy folder together with all its proxies.

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the base safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable scope detail—that all contained proxies are deleted—which goes beyond the generic destructive flag, though it does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or behavior on a missing folder.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, with no filler or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what gets deleted and the required parameter. It omits, however, the crucial routing guidance against delete_proxy_folder, so an agent could choose the wrong tool and cause unintended data loss.

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. The description adds a meaningful validity constraint not present in the schema: proxyFolderId must reference an existing folder within the specified workspace, implying failure otherwise.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('deletes a proxy folder and all proxies it contains') and defines the 'with contents' behavior, which implicitly separates it from delete_proxy_folder. However, it never names or explicitly contrasts the sibling tool, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many alternatives, notably delete_proxy_folder, which is a critical distinction given the destructive scope. The only contextual statement is a parameter precondition ('proxyFolderId must match the existing folder'), not a when-to-use rule.

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