delete_solution_folderMoves a solution folder and its articles to trash by folder ID to remove outdated knowledge base content.
Move a folder (and its articles) to trash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder_id | Yes | Solution folder ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's real contribution is disclosing that the operation is a soft delete ('to trash') and that contained articles are affected – both beyond the annotations. It stops short of saying whether subfolders cascade or whether a restore path exists.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the key side effect. Nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining needs are small. However, for a destructive cascading operation, the description leaves open whether subfolders are also trashed, what permissions are required, and whether recovery is possible.
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% with one parameter, so the schema already fully documents folder_id. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier's format or origin, which is acceptable given the schema carries the load.
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 ('Move ... to trash') and resource ('folder'), and adds useful scope information: its articles are affected too. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling deletion tools like delete_solution_article or delete_solution_category, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as delete_solution_article, nor any prerequisites or warnings before calling it. The only hint is the word 'trash', leaving the agent to infer the lifecycle from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.