Deletes a bookmark folder by its ID. Verify that contained bookmarks are cleared or moved first, since deletion is permanent.
删除指定 ID 的文件夹。注意：请先确认该文件夹下的书签已清理或转移，谨慎删除。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 要删除的文件夹 ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden: it does convey destructiveness and the bookmark-content risk, which is valuable. It omits whether deletion is permanent, whether subfolders cascade, permission requirements, and response behavior — significant gaps for an unannotated mutation tool.
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, action first then warning, with no wasted phrasing. Front-loading the deletion statement before the caveat is the right ordering.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main hazard (contained bookmarks) but leaves unclear whether subfolders are affected and what a success response looks like. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema as the folder ID to delete. The description only echoes 'the specified ID' without adding format or sourcing details, 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 (删除...文件夹) scoped to a given ID, which cleanly separates it from ilinks_delete_bookmark and ilinks_create_folder. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, 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?
Provides a concrete precondition — confirm bookmarks under the folder are cleaned up or moved before deleting — which is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation. No alternative tool is named, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.