axcel_folder_deletePermanently deletes a Library folder after explicit confirmation, removing stored folder data from Axcel MCP. Use when you need to clear a folder and cannot undo the action.
Delete a Library folder (cannot be undone).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Must be true: confirms the user asked for this (it uses the Axcel plan or deletes data). | |
| folderId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the explicit irreversibility note ('cannot be undone'), which reinforces rather than contradicts the annotations, but it says nothing about side effects on contained items or auth requirements.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the destructive warning is placed immediately after the action. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but nothing in it 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?
For a two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the annotations plus the irreversibility note cover the essentials. However, the gap on folderId semantics and the lack of any sibling differentiation leave an agent with gaps it must resolve elsewhere.
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 description coverage is 50%: confirm is well documented in the schema, but folderId has no description. The word 'Library' weakly implies folderId identifies a library folder, but the description does not clarify the identifier format or whether nested contents are removed.
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 Library folder'), which is enough to distinguish it from folder_create, folder_rename, and library_delete. It does not explicitly contrast with library_delete, the nearest sibling, but the resource scope 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as axcel_library_delete or axcel_folder_rename, and no stated preconditions beyond the implicit warning. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.