delete_folder

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

The description discloses asynchronous behavior, job token return, and polling detail. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden; it lacks info on cascading deletes, permissions required, or error handling, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 concise (about 5 lines) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses parentheses and semicolons to pack additional information without verbosity. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return values (job token or final payload). It mentions the polling mechanism and references get_job_progress for follow-up. However, it does not describe the job-progress payload structure or error states.

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 explains 5 of 6 parameters: folder_id, cycle_id, project/version (with usage hints), and wait. It omits timeout, but overall adds significant meaning beyond the schema, such as noting that folder_id comes from list_cycle_folders.

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 'Delete a folder from a cycle' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_folder, update_folder, and delete_cycle by focusing on folder deletion. The asynchronous nature is front-loaded.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it explains the wait parameter with two modes (wait=True polls to completion, wait=False returns a token for later polling via get_job_progress). It also gives tips on project/version parameter values (prefer ids, -1 for Unscheduled).

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