Photos: Delete folders

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

Goes well past destructiveHint=true by explaining recycle-bin semantics (and the permanence fallback when no recycle bin exists) and the async pattern where a large delete keeps running on the NAS and returns a handle for photo_task. These are exactly the consequences an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying new information: what gets deleted, where it goes, what happens on big deletes, and the confirmation requirement. The destruction scope is front-loaded so nothing important is buried.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining that the reply returns a task handle for photo_task. It leaves out permission/auth requirements and partial-failure behavior on a multi-folder delete (up to 1,000 IDs), which would matter for a destructive bulk 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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns the extra point by clarifying that deletion is recursive over the folders argument and by giving the 'gone, not recycled' caveat that conditions how the space parameter's behavior plays out.

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?

Names a specific verb (Delete) and resource (folders in Synology Photos) and states the recursive scope ('everything in them (files and subfolders)'), which immediately distinguishes it from delete_photos and delete_photo_albums in the sibling list.

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?

Gives an explicit operational guardrail ('Confirm with the user first') and implies the space-scoped context, but never explicitly routes an agent to delete_photos for individual files or names when not to use this tool — the disambiguation is inferable from the sibling names rather than stated.

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