Delete Folder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description isn't carrying the safety burden alone. It still earns credit for the blast-radius detail that annotations cannot express: the deletion cascades through nested folders and link nodes, yet leaves target documents, tags, and collections intact. It stops short of covering failure behavior for a missing folderId or whether recovery is possible.

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 sentences, no filler. The experimental warning and cascade scope lead, and the non-destructive caveat follows as a qualifier — exactly the right ordering for a destructive tool.

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, so return values needn't be explained, and the description adequately frames the mutation's effect. Minor gap: no mention of the AFFINE_WORKSPACE_ID prerequisite or whether a deleted folder can be restored, which matters for an irreversible 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 description coverage is 100%, so both folderId and workspaceId are already documented in the schema. The description adds no param-level guidance (e.g., how to obtain a folder node id via list_organize_nodes), 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 an AFFiNE organize folder') and immediately bounds the scope ('every nested folder or link node'). This lets an agent distinguish it from delete_doc, delete_collection, and delete_organize_link without opening any 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 'Experimental' prefix and the cascade scope imply when this is appropriate, and clarifying that documents/tags/collections survive implicitly routes content deletion to delete_doc/delete_collection. But it never explicitly names an alternative or states a 'prefer X when you only want to unlink' condition, nor does it mention the workspaceId/env prerequisite.

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