Delete a folder

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the disclosure burden and does reveal the key non-cascading behavior: contained jobs are kept and become unfoldered. However, it doesn't mention whether the deletion is reversible, what happens to nested folders, or whether special permissions are required.

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?

Two short sentences carry the full meaning: the operation and its main side effect. There is no filler, and the key fact about jobs is placed immediately after the action.

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-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential effect needed for correct use: the folder is deleted while its jobs are preserved. It is slightly incomplete on edge behaviors such as subfolder handling, but not enough to block a typical call.

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?

The schema already covers the only parameter folderId at 100% and describes it as a numeric ID. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific operation and resource ('Delete a folder') and immediately clarifies scope with 'Jobs inside it are not deleted; they become unfoldered.' This distinguishes it from delete_job and other folder tools despite the title being similar.

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 intended use is implied: choose this tool when the goal is to remove a folder but keep its jobs, as shown by the 'jobs become unfoldered' note. It does not explicitly name alternatives, conditions, or when not to use it.

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