Delete a workflow folder in GoHighLevel, moving any contained workflows to the root level. This action is irreversible.
Delete a workflow folder. Any workflows inside the folder are automatically moved to root level by GHL. Cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folderId | Yes | The folder ID to delete (from list_folders) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
destructiveHint=true already declares the operation is destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: contained workflows are relocated to root level rather than deleted, and the action is irreversible. It does not cover permissions or any partial-failure behavior, keeping it just short of a 5.
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?
Three short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, followed by the cascade side effect and the irreversibility warning. No filler.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with a complete schema and a destructive annotation, the description supplies everything needed: what it deletes, what happens to contents, and that it cannot be undone. No output schema is required for a delete 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 100% and folderId is fully documented in the schema (including its provenance from list_folders). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Delete a workflow folder'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling delete_workflow (which deletes the workflow itself, not a container). The scope is unambiguous without opening the schema.
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 purpose implies when it applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as rename_folder, move_workflow, or create_folder. An agent can infer usage but is given no routing rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.